Need full deal details? Retrieve a single deal by ID to get resolved custom fields, activity counts, product counts, and more.
Get a single deal by ID with full details including resolved custom fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes | The deal ID to retrieve | |
| include_fields | No | Additional fields to include in the response | |
| custom_field_keys | No | Custom field keys to include in the response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / custom_field_keys / descriptionAdded value: +"Custom field keys to include in the response"Input schema / properties / include_fields / descriptionAdded value: +"Additional fields to include in the response"Input schema / properties / include_fields / items / enumAdded value: +[
+ "next_activity_id",
+ "last_activity_id",
+ "first_won_time",
+ "products_count",
+ "files_count",
+ "notes_count",
+ "followers_count",
+ "email_messages_count",
+ "activities_count",
+ "done_activities_count",
+ "undone_activities_count",
+ "participants_count",
+ "last_incoming_mail_time",
+ "last_outgoing_mail_time",
+ "smart_bcc_email",
+ "source_lead_id"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and 'resolved custom fields' hints at how custom data is returned, but there is no mention of error behavior for invalid/inaccessible IDs, permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the key lookup, and the notable return content. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back ('full details including resolved custom fields'). It is adequate, though it could note that include_fields/custom_field_keys control the extra response content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so deal_id, include_fields, and custom_field_keys are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at custom fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single deal by ID') and scope ('full details including resolved custom fields'). The 'single deal by ID' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the list/search siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for retrieving one known deal rather than browsing or searching. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pipedrive_deals_list, pipedrive_deals_search, or pipedrive_deals_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.