Search for real estate CRM pipelines by exact name or custom filters to retrieve matching pipeline records.
Search for pipelines. (GET /pipelines)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | The pipeline name to lookup. (Must be an exact match.) | |
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only gives the action and endpoint, without mentioning pagination, exact-match behavior beyond the schema, authentication needs, or what the response contains. The GET method implies a read operation but that is left to inference.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, with the endpoint parenthetical adding useful orientation. However, it says little beyond the tool name and HTTP method, making it efficient but quite spare.
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 large sibling tool set, the description leaves too much unsaid about when to use the tool, what it returns, and how results are scoped or paginated. The parameter schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for confident selection and 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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters and already explains exact-match semantics for name and passthrough behavior for extraQuery. The description adds no parameter-specific value, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Search for pipelines' and includes the endpoint GET /pipelines, clearly identifying a search/list operation on pipeline resources. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_pipeline, but the verb 'search' and resource are specific enough.
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 list_pipelines versus get_pipeline or other pipeline-related tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.