Retrieve a specific pipeline by its ID from the Follow Up Boss CRM to access its stages and settings for analysis or updates.
Retrieve a pipeline by id. (GET /pipelines/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the HTTP method and resource, which is essentially the same as the tool name. It does not disclose what happens if the id is not found, whether related objects are included, or any response characteristics. For a read operation, this is a minimal but not rich disclosure.
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?
The description is a single sentence with the endpoint included, which is efficient and front-loaded. It earns its place by adding the HTTP method and path, though it is terse. No wasted words.
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, the description is minimal. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of error behavior or response format. The sibling list is large, and the description does not help an agent distinguish when to use get_pipeline vs list_pipelines. The endpoint is helpful, but the description lacks enough context for an agent to know what to expect.
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 50%: the 'id' parameter has no description, while 'extraQuery' has a detailed description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The 'extraQuery' parameter is well explained in the schema, but 'id' is left to the tool name and endpoint. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers half the parameters well.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('pipeline by id'), and includes the HTTP endpoint (GET /pipelines/{id}) which clarifies the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_pipelines and update_pipeline, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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: use this when you have a pipeline id and need a single pipeline. It does not explicitly state when to use list_pipelines instead, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The endpoint hint provides some context but no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.