Skip to main content
Glama
comma-compliance

pipedrive-mcp

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

pipedrive_persons_create

Create a new person in Pipedrive CRM with custom fields, labels, emails, and phones. Add contacts and assign owners.

Instructions

Create a new person. Supports custom fields by name or key, and the native Label field via label_ids (IDs or label names).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPerson name
emailsNoEmail addresses
org_idNo
phonesNoPhone numbers
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. Changed7 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 / emails / description
      Added value: +"Email addresses"
    • 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 / phones / description
      Added value: +"Phone numbers"
    • 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, and it discloses little: nothing about required permissions, duplicate handling, reversibility, or what the response contains. The one behavioral hint, that label_ids replaces existing labels and that custom fields can be addressed by name or key, largely mirrors the schema rather than adding new context.

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 the qualifiers immediately after; no filler or repetition. It could be marginally improved by folding the custom-field/label notes into a single clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: no indication of required fields, authentication, what a successful create returns (e.g., the new person ID), or error behavior. What is present covers only custom fields and labels, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the call's outcome.

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 89%, so the schema already documents name, emails, phones, owner_id, label_ids, visible_to, and both custom-field objects. The description's mention of custom fields by name/key and the native Label field adds minor framing but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Create) and resource (a new person), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does and can distinguish it from persons_update, persons_merge, etc. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, but the name-plus-description combination is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus persons_update, persons_merge, or how to handle an existing person (create vs update). The only guidance-like content is about how custom fields and labels are supplied, which is invocation detail rather than usage context.

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