Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_update_note

Idempotent

Update a Pipedrive note: modify its content, change linked deals, persons, organizations, or leads, and toggle pin flags.

Instructions

Update an existing note in Pipedrive.

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_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNote ID to update
org_idNoNew linked organization ID
contentNoNew note content (HTML supported)
deal_idNoNew linked deal ID
lead_idNoNew linked lead ID (UUID format)
person_idNoNew linked person ID
pinned_to_deal_flagNoPin note to deal
pinned_to_person_flagNoPin note to person
pinned_to_organization_flagNoPin note to organization

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating 'Update', failing to disclose traits like partial update behavior, permission requirements, or side effects.

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?

Five-word sentence, zero wasted words. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Description is minimal but arguably sufficient given detailed schema. However, lack of output description and no mention of how updates work (e.g., partial vs full replacement) leaves some gaps for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing note in Pipedrive', distinguishing it from create and other update tools for different entities. It directly conveys the tool's function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_note or other update tools. No mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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