Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_update_pipeline

Idempotent

Modify an existing pipeline by ID: set a new name or toggle deal probability. Provide the pipeline ID and the fields to update.

Instructions

Update an existing pipeline. Provide the pipeline id and any fields to change.

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_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the pipeline to update
nameNoThe new name of the pipeline
is_deal_probability_enabledNoWhether deal probability is enabled for this pipeline

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide behavioral traits (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open world). The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as return value or side effects, but it is consistent with the 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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with the action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word is useful with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but missing mention of the return value (no output schema). It does not fully cover what the agent should expect after the update.

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%, and the schema already describes all parameters. The description only summarizes 'any fields to change' without adding new meaning or details beyond what the schema provides.

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 an existing pipeline' with a specific verb and resource. It also instructs to provide the pipeline id and fields to change, distinguishing it from create or list operations.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (modify an existing pipeline) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like updating a phase or deal. However, the name and context make the usage clear.

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