Skip to main content
Glama
comma-compliance

pipedrive-mcp

by comma-compliance
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

pipedrive_organizations_update

Update an existing Pipedrive organization's details, including custom fields by name or key and labels via label_ids.

Instructions

Update an existing organization. Supports custom fields by name or key, and the native Label field via label_ids (IDs or label names).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
org_idYesThe organization ID to update
addressNo
owner_idNoUser ID of the owner
label_idsNoNative Label field. Label option IDs or label names (e.g. [367] or ['Test / Internal']). Replaces existing labels; pass [] to clear. Sent as top-level label_ids, not a custom field.
visible_toNoVisibility: 1=owner only, 3=owner's group, 5=owner's group+sub, 7=everyone
custom_fieldsNoCustom fields by API key (e.g. { 'abc123hash': 'value' })
custom_fields_by_nameNoCustom fields by human-readable name (e.g. { 'Tier': 'Enterprise' })

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_fields / description
      Added value: +"Custom fields by API key (e.g. { 'abc123hash': 'value' })"
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_fields_by_name / description
      Added value: +"Custom fields by human-readable name (e.g. { 'Tier': 'Enterprise' })"
    • addedInput schema / properties / label_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Native Label field. Label option IDs or label names (e.g. [367] or ['Test / Internal']). Replaces existing labels; pass [] to clear. Sent as top-level label_ids, not a custom field."
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_id / description
      Added value: +"User ID of the owner"
    • addedInput schema / properties / visible_to / description
      Added value: +"Visibility: 1=owner only, 3=owner's group, 5=owner's group+sub, 7=everyone"
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb 'update'. It does not say whether updates are partial or full-replace, what permissions are required, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what a successful call returns. The one genuinely behavioral fact — that label_ids replaces existing labels — is only in the schema, not the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence largely restates what the schemas for custom_fields, custom_fields_by_name and label_ids already document, so it earns only partial value, keeping this just short of a 5.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say more than it does, particularly about partial-update semantics and prerequisites. The schema does cover the trickiest parameter (label_ids replacement and clearing), which lifts it to a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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 description coverage is 75%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description usefully confirms that both custom_fields (by key) and custom_fields_by_name (by name) exist and that label_ids accepts either IDs or names, but it adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema properties already spell out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing organization') and the word 'existing' signals the required org_id, distinguishing it from pipedrive_organizations_create. However, it never names or contrasts with the other organization siblings (get, delete, merge, search), so the agent gets no explicit routing cue beyond the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. an existing org_id must come from a list/search first), and no mention of alternatives such as merge or delete. The sentence about custom fields and label_ids is field-selection guidance, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer when this tool applies.

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