Retrieve a single deal's full details, including custom-field values and history, to read structured data for P&L or balance-sheet models.
Get a single deal with full details — value, currency, probability, stage, contact, expected close date, custom-field values, activities, tasks, and history. Use this to read structured custom-field data back out of a deal (e.g. for a P&L or balance-sheet model).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Deal UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the broad shape of what comes back (including nested activities, tasks and history), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown/unauthorized deal id, or whether custom fields are always included.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the use case. The dash-separated field list is long but each item tells the agent what is returned from a tool with no output schema, so it largely earns its space.
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 output schema, enumerating returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the use-case sentence anchors it. Remaining gaps are minor for a read-only single-record fetch: no error/failure behavior and no note on whether custom fields include empty values.
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?
A single id parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Deal UUID'). The description adds no format, lookup or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Get a single deal') and enumerates the payload it returns (value, currency, probability, stage, contact, custom fields, activities, tasks, history). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from list_deals, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation stays inferential.
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?
Gives a concrete when-to-use case: reading structured custom-field data back out for a P&L or balance-sheet model. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. list_deals or search for bulk retrieval), so it is clear context without routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.