Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_update_board

Idempotent

Update an existing project board in Pipedrive by providing its ID. Optionally set a new name or order number.

Instructions

Update an existing project board. Only id is required; all other fields are optional. (Projects add-on; Projects API in public beta.)

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_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe board ID to update
nameNoBoard name
order_nrNoBoard order number (integer >= 1)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, etc. Description adds that it's an update (mutation) and optional fields, but does not disclose authorization needs, error handling, or side effects beyond annotations.

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 front-loading the main purpose and key constraint (only id required). No unnecessary 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?

For a simple update tool with 3 parameters, full schema, and annotations, the description covers core functionality and the API status. Could mention return value, but not required since no output schema.

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. Description adds that only id is required, which is redundant with schema but helpful. No additional meaning for optional parameters.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing project board'), with the note that only id is required, distinguishing it from create_board and other update tools.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use (update an existing board with ID) and that all other fields are optional, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like create_board for new boards.

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