list_dealsRetrieve deals from the sales pipeline, filtered by company or stage, to track progress and manage your CRM records.
List deals in the sales pipeline, optionally filtered by company or stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | ||
| companyId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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, and it only establishes that this is a filtered listing. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, default ordering, or what happens when no filters are supplied — all material for a list tool that returns an unbounded collection.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the optional filters trailing; nothing is wasted. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.
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 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral context and it omits return shape, pagination, ordering, and filter-combination behavior. For a pipeline-listing tool in a CRM with 15 siblings, that leaves real gaps an agent must guess around.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only names the two filter concepts (company, stage) without adding format, matching semantics, or ID-type guidance. The stage enum values live in the schema, which is the one piece of parameter clarity that is actually structured.
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 a specific verb and resource ('List deals') plus the scope ('in the sales pipeline'), so an agent can tell it apart from get_deal or get_pipeline_summary by the plural-resource list semantics. It does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, but the single-vs-collection distinction is inferable from the name and description.
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?
'Optionally filtered by company or stage' implies the usage context (narrow the pipeline view with filters), which is better than nothing. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_crm or get_pipeline_summary, and it gives no exclusion guidance for the case where the caller already has a deal ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.