List mail messages linked to a Pipedrive person by ID, with pagination via limit and cursor. Use it to review a contact's email communication history.
List mail messages linked to a person.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items per page (default 25, max 100) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque token from previous response to fetch the next page | |
| person_id | Yes | The person ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Opaque token from previous response to fetch the next page"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of items per page (default 25, max 100)"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 only implies a read operation; it says nothing about pagination behavior (despite cursor/limit params), 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 terse sentence with zero waste and the key scoping constraint front-loaded. It is efficient but so brief that it omits useful context rather than being verbose.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a paginated endpoint, a one-line description leaves the agent without pagination expectations or return-shape context. Adequate to identify the tool but thin for correct invocation.
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 the schema already documents person_id, limit, and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 (List) and resource (mail messages) plus the scoping relation (linked to a person), which distinguishes it from pipedrive_mail_thread_messages_list and pipedrive_deal_mail_messages_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, 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?
No guidance on when to use this over the two closely-related siblings (mail_thread_messages_list, deal_mail_messages_list), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the scoping phrase in the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.