list_dealsRetrieve and filter CRM deals by stage, contact, or open status, including contact names, so you can review pipeline opportunities without manual searches.
List deals, optionally by stage or contact. Includes the contact name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | ||
| open_only | No | ||
| contact_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that the contact name is included in results, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume.
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?
Two short sentences with the action and filters front-loaded; there is no filler. The only weakness is that the same brevity leaves the open_only parameter undocumented.
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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, a brief description is largely sufficient. However, the undocumented open_only parameter and the absence of any pagination or result-shape guidance leave gaps an agent would need to guess at.
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 carry the load. It explains stage and contact filtering, but never mentions open_only, and gives no format or semantics for contact_id (the schema supplies only a regex pattern). One of three parameters is entirely undocumented in prose.
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 deals') and names the optional filters, which separates it from siblings like upsert_deal or pipeline_summary. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
It hints at filtering ('optionally by stage or contact') but never states when to call this versus pipeline_summary (which presumably aggregates) or search-style siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.