ActiveCampaign MCP

retrieve_a_deal

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves details of an existing deal from ActiveCampaign using its unique ID. Provides deal data without modifying your account.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Deals · GET /deals/{id}

Retrieve a deal

Fetches data. Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account.

Retrieve an existing deal

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "retrieve_a_deal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The Deal's id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a 'Fetches data. Makes no changes' statement which aligns but is redundant. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, permissions) are disclosed. With annotations fully covering the behavioral profile, the description adds limited value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, but it repeats 'Retrieve a deal' twice and includes a line about fetching data that is redundant with annotations. It is not overly long but could be more concise.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the operation, readonly nature, and endpoint. No output schema exists, but the agent can infer the return structure from the tool name and typical deal objects. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%: the single 'id' parameter has a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or format hints. Given the simplicity of the parameter, this is acceptable.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve a deal' and specifies it fetches data without making changes. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'deal' are specific, and among siblings like 'list_all_deals', this tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name and description imply it is for retrieving a single deal, and siblings like 'list_all_deals' suggest alternative use cases. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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

Deploy Server