Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pipedrive MCP Server

Pipedrive MCP Server

by ckalima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_update_product_field

Idempotent

Modify an existing Pipedrive product custom field by its field code, updating the display name and UI visibility flags.

Instructions

Update a product custom field by field_code. Only field_name and ui_visibility can be changed (product fields have no description/important_fields/required_fields).

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": {
      "field_code": "<field_code>"
    },
    "name": "pipedrive_update_product_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
field_codeYesThe field_code (40-char hash for custom fields) from the field create/list response. NOT the human field name.
field_nameNoNew field name (1-255 chars)
ui_visibilityNoUI visibility (product fields use a simpler model): add_visible_flag, details_visible_flag.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive write. The description adds that only field_name and ui_visibility are mutable, and explicitly states what cannot be changed (description/important_fields/required_fields). No contradictions.

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 with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral constraints (mutable fields, product field specifics). Schema covers all parameters. No output schema, but the tool is straightforward. Adequate for agent decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the scope of mutable fields and the product field model constraints, going beyond the schema.

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 updates a product custom field by field_code, and specifies which fields can be changed (field_name and ui_visibility). It distinguishes from create and other update tools by narrowing the scope to product fields only.

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 usage for updating product custom fields, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other field update tools). The context of 'update' and sibling tool names provide some differentiation.

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