apollo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

apollo_update_deal

Update an existing deal in Apollo.io CRM by providing the deal ID and any fields to change. Modifies only specified fields.

Instructions

Update an existing deal/opportunity. Requires a master Apollo API key. Pass only the fields you want to change.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "opportunity_id": "<opportunity_id>"
    },
    "name": "apollo_update_deal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`amount`	No
`owner_id`	No
`closed_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`opportunity_id`	Yes	The deal ID to update
`typed_custom_fields`	No
`opportunity_stage_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses mutation behavior ('update'), authentication requirement, and partial update pattern. With no annotations, the description carries this burden effectively. Could mention idempotency or response details, but current coverage is good.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical prerequisites and usage hint. Efficiently structured.

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?

Adequate for a simple update tool with an output schema, but missing explanations for custom fields and parameter formats. The description is too brief given the 7 parameters and 29% schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (29%), yet the description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It provides a general instruction but does not explain fields like typed_custom_fields, owner_id, or opportunity_stage_id structure.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Update an existing deal/opportunity', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like apollo_create_deal and apollo_search_deals, which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Requires a master Apollo API key'. Also advises 'Pass only the fields you want to change', which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server