Pipedrive MCP Server

pipedrive_list_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

List tasks across all Pipedrive projects with optional filters for project, assignee, done status, milestone, and parent task. Use to query any task beyond a single project's full list.

Instructions

General task query across all projects, with optional project_id, assignee_id, done/milestone, and parent filters. Use for anything beyond a single project's full task list. (Projects add-on; Projects API in public beta.)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pipedrive_list_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of items (1-100, default 50)
`cursor`	No	Cursor for pagination (from previous response)
`is_done`	No	Filter by done status
`project_id`	No	Filter by project ID
`assignee_id`	No	Filter by assignee user ID
`is_milestone`	No	Filter by milestone status
`parent_task_id`	No	Filter by parent task ID. Use the literal string "null" to return only root-level tasks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.4.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, etc. The description adds context: 'Projects add-on; Projects API in public beta', which informs about prerequisites and stability. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences. First sentence front-loads purpose and key filters. Second sentence provides usage context and important notes. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential scope, filter guidance, and context (add-on, beta). Lacks detail on return format, but annotations cover safety. Minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by mentioning 'parent filters' and hinting at 'null' for root-level tasks, but mostly repeats schema info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'General task query across all projects' with specific filters, using a specific verb 'query'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pipedrive_list_project_tasks by noting its cross-project scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for anything beyond a single project's full task list', guiding when to use this tool over alternatives. Could be improved by directly naming sibling tools, but the guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server