Export deals as JSON and filter by status, pipeline, or search term to retrieve targeted sales data for reporting or backup.
Export deals as JSON with filtering by status, pipeline, or search term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search deal titles | |
| status | No | Filter by status (open, won, lost) | |
| pipeline | No | Filter by pipeline UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about what happens with no filters (full account dump?), volume or size limits, whether the export is synchronous, or what permissions are required — all material for an export operation that could return a large payload.
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 verb, resource, format, and filters — zero filler and no redundancy.
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 three-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the core is covered. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should still say what the export returns or defaults to, and it does not, leaving the agent guessing about scope and payload size.
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%: all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the status values (open, won, lost). The description merely restates the same three filter names without adding format, combination, or default behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (export deals) plus the output format (JSON) and the available filters, which is more than the name alone conveys. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling deal-readers such as conduyt_list_deals or conduyt_search, so an agent must infer that 'export' means a full JSON dump rather than a paginated list.
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 use of 'Export' plus 'as JSON' implies a data-extraction use case rather than interactive browsing, which weakly distinguishes it from conduyt_list_deals. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no statement about whether all three filters may be combined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.