Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_search_leads

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Pipedrive leads by title, contact, or custom fields. Refine results with person, organization, or exact match filters.

Instructions

Search for leads in Pipedrive by title or associated contacts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "term": "<term>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_search_leads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termYesSearch term (required)
limitNoNumber of results (1-500, default 50)
cursorNoCursor for pagination
fieldsNoComma-separated fields to search (title, notes, custom_fields). Defaults to all.
person_idNoFilter by linked person ID
exact_matchNoUse exact match instead of fuzzy search
include_fieldsNoOptional extra field: only 'lead.was_seen'
organization_idNoFilter by linked organization ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not reiterate safety. However, it adds no extra context about pagination, rate limits, or result format, which would be valuable.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is well front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description omits details about pagination (cursor, limit), exact match, and result structure. It is too brief for a tool with significant configurable options.

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 the baseline is 3. The description simplifies parameters ('by title or associated contacts') but does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema. It underrepresents the full range of search fields.

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 the tool searches for leads by title or associated contacts, using a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (e.g., pipedrive_search_deals) by explicitly naming 'leads'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for searching leads but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like pipedrive_list_leads or pipedrive_get_lead. No when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings is given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools