Retrieve a paginated list of Pipedrive organizations (companies) using an API token, with a configurable limit, to browse company records for CRM workflows.
List Pipedrive organizations (companies).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Organizations to return (max 100, default 25) | |
| api_token | Yes | Pipedrive API token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no pagination behavior, auth details, rate limits, or return shape are mentioned. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 short sentence with zero wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 list tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it could have mentioned what the listing returns or pagination behavior, leaving a modest gap.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters including the limit default and maximum. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'List Pipedrive organizations' with a clarifying parenthetical '(companies)'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as pipedrive_list_persons or pipedrive_search_deals.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer list_organizations over search or related Pipedrive tools, nor any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.