Pipedrive MCP Server

pipedrive_update_activity

Idempotent

Update existing Pipedrive activities by ID. Modify details, mark as done, or change scheduling, attendees, and more to keep records accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing activity in Pipedrive. Use this to mark activities as done.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_update_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Activity ID to update
`busy`	No	Show as busy
`done`	No	Mark as completed/pending
`note`	No	New notes
`type`	No	New type
`org_id`	No	New organization ID
`deal_id`	No	New deal ID
`lead_id`	No	New lead ID (UUID format)
`subject`	No	New subject
`due_date`	No	New due date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`due_time`	No	New due time (HH:MM)
`duration`	No	New duration (HH:MM)
`location`	No	New location (structured object)
`owner_id`	No	New owner
`priority`	No	New priority (integer)
`attendees`	No	New attendees
`person_id`	No	New person ID
`project_id`	No	New project ID
`participants`	No	New participants

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv2.4.0Jun 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / location / description

Previous value: -"New location"New value: +"New location (structured object)"

addedInput schema / properties / location / properties

Added value: +{
+  "admin_area_level_1": {
+    "description": "Admin area level 1 (e.g. state)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "admin_area_level_2": {
+    "description": "Admin area level 2 (e.g. county)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "country": {
+    "description": "Country",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "locality": {
+    "description": "Locality (e.g. city)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "postal_code": {
+    "description": "Postal code",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "route": {
+    "description": "Route (e.g. street)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "street_number": {
+    "description": "Street number",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "sublocality": {
+    "description": "Sublocality (e.g. neighborhood)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "subpremise": {
+    "description": "Subpremise (e.g. apartment/suite)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "value": {
+    "description": "The full address",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

changedInput schema / properties / location / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +"object"
```

First observedv1.0.0Jan 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint; the description adds 'Update' and 'mark as done', which are consistent but not extensive. It does not elaborate on update behavior (e.g., partial vs full update) or data persistence effects beyond the annotation hints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with two sentences that convey purpose and a key use case. It could be slightly improved by noting that only 'id' is required, but overall it is efficient and 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?

The tool is complex with 19 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is very brief and does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial update), response format, error handling, or field-level constraints beyond the schema. This is insufficient for an AI agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'activity', and provides a specific use case 'mark activities as done'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipedrive_create_activity and pipedrive_get_activity.

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 updating activities and marking them done, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling update tools, more explicit guidance would be helpful.

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

Deploy Server