Skip to main content
Glama

deals_update

Update specific fields of existing deals in Pipedrive, such as value, title, status, or stage. Only provide the fields you want to change.

Instructions

Update an existing deal.

Updates one or more fields of an existing deal. Only provide fields you want to change.

Workflow tips:

  • Only specify fields you want to update

  • Use deals/get first to see current values

  • Use deals/move_to_stage for simple stage changes

  • To mark as won/lost, update status field

Common use cases:

  • Update value: { "id": 123, "value": 7500 }

  • Change title: { "id": 123, "title": "Updated Deal Name" }

  • Mark as won: { "id": 123, "status": "won" }

  • Update multiple fields: { "id": 123, "value": 10000, "expected_close_date": "2024-12-31", "probability": 75 }

  • Move to new stage: { "id": 123, "stage_id": 5 }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the deal to update
titleNoDeal title
valueNoDeal value
currencyNo3-letter currency code
user_idNoID of the user who will own this deal
person_idNoID of the person
org_idNoID of the organization
pipeline_idNoID of the pipeline
stage_idNoID of the stage
statusNoDeal status
expected_close_dateNoExpected close date in YYYY-MM-DD format
probabilityNoDeal success probability (0-100)
lost_reasonNoReason why the deal was lost
visible_toNoVisibility setting
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains that only specified fields are updated, implying partial update behavior. However, it omits details on response format, error handling, idempotency, or required permissions. While basic behavior is clear, depth is lacking for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with a single-sentence overview, followed by workflow tips and common use cases. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, the example section is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 14 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides workflow tips and practical examples that aid understanding of partial updates. It lacks details on error responses and edge cases, but overall it is fairly complete for typical use.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no new semantic information about parameters beyond the examples; it simply illustrates usage. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description starts with 'Update an existing deal,' specifying the verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deals_move_to_stage and deals_mark_as_lost/won by mentioning them explicitly in workflow tips, ensuring the agent knows the difference.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Workflow tips explicitly state when to use alternatives: 'Use deals/move_to_stage for simple stage changes' and 'To mark as won/lost, update status field.' It also advises fetching current values with deals/get first, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/iamsamuelfraga/mcp-pipedrive'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server