Skip to main content
Glama

persons_update

Update a person's information in Pipedrive by providing the person ID and any fields to change, such as name, email, phone, organization, visibility, or marketing consent.

Instructions

Update an existing person's information.

Required fields:

  • id: Person ID to update

Optional fields (only provide fields you want to change):

  • name: Full name

  • owner_id: User who will own this person

  • org_id: Organization this person belongs to

  • email: Array of email addresses with format: [{"value": "john@company.com", "primary": true, "label": "work"}]

  • phone: Array of phone numbers with format: [{"value": "+1234567890", "primary": true, "label": "mobile"}]

  • visible_to: Visibility level (1=owner only, 3=entire company, 5=owner's followers, 7=visibility group)

  • marketing_status: Marketing consent status (no_consent, unsubscribed, subscribed, archived)

Note: When updating email/phone arrays, provide the complete array (it replaces the existing one).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPerson ID to update
nameNoFull name of the person
owner_idNoID of the user who will own this person
org_idNoID of the organization this person belongs to
emailNoEmail addresses array (replaces existing). Example: [{"value": "john@company.com", "primary": true, "label": "work"}]
phoneNoPhone numbers array (replaces existing). Example: [{"value": "+1234567890", "primary": true, "label": "mobile"}]
visible_toNoVisibility: 1 (owner only), 3 (entire company), 5 (owner's followers), 7 (visibility group)
marketing_statusNoMarketing consent status
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the replacement behavior for email/phone arrays but omits details on authorization, reversibility, or side effects, which are critical for an update operation.

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 sections for required and optional fields. It is relatively concise for the number of parameters, though it could be shorter without losing meaning.

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?

The description lacks information about return values or success/failure responses. Given no output schema, this is a significant gap for an update tool. It also does not mention prerequisites like the person existing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a note about replacement behavior for arrays and clarifies optional fields, but these add marginal value over the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 person's information.' which uses a specific verb (update) and resource (existing person's information). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like persons_create, persons_delete, etc.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as persons_merge or persons_create. It implies usage for updating but lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use.

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