Retrieve complete details of a Pipedrive organization by ID, including resolved custom fields and optional metrics, for CRM data access.
Get a single organization by ID with full details including resolved custom fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes | The organization 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",
+ "open_deals_count",
+ "related_open_deals_count",
+ "closed_deals_count",
+ "related_closed_deals_count",
+ "email_messages_count",
+ "people_count",
+ "activities_count",
+ "done_activities_count",
+ "undone_activities_count",
+ "files_count",
+ "notes_count",
+ "followers_count",
+ "won_deals_count",
+ "related_won_deals_count",
+ "lost_deals_count",
+ "related_lost_deals_count",
+ "smart_bcc_email"
+]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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes 'resolved custom fields,' which hints at response behavior, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, error cases, or whether custom fields are only resolved when keys are supplied.
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 resource, and the key return characteristic with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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 get-by-ID tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned, including resolved custom fields. It could be slightly more complete by noting that include_fields and custom_field_keys are optional response-expansion parameters, but the schema already covers that.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'resolved custom fields,' which loosely connects to the custom_field_keys parameter but does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a single organization by ID'), and adds scope with 'full details including resolved custom fields.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pipedrive_organizations_list or pipedrive_organizations_search, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description implies usage by saying 'by ID,' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as search or list. An agent must infer that this is the right tool when it already has an organization ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.