Retrieve a CRM pipeline by ID, including its stages and items, to view the full board returned by the upstream system.
Consulta um pipeline com suas etapas e itens; o upstream devolve o quadro completo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pipeline_id | Yes | ID retornado pelo CRM (UUID ou identificador numérico como texto). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a 'quadro completo' including stages and items, which is useful since there's no output schema, but it does not elaborate on payload structure, size, or pagination.
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 that leads with the verb and resource. The trailing 'o upstream devolve o quadro completo' slightly echoes 'com suas etapas e itens' but still adds return-shape context, so waste is minimal.
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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate: it conveys purpose, scope, and that the return is a complete board. No output schema exists, and the description gives enough to call it correctly.
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% and the single pipeline_id parameter is well documented with pattern and format notes. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the 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 (consulta) and resource (pipeline) and clarifies scope by noting it includes 'etapas e itens', which implicitly distinguishes it from pipelines_list and pipeline_items_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied through 'o upstream devolve o quadro completo', suggesting this is for fetching one pipeline's full board rather than listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer selection logic against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.