pipedrive_get_dealGet complete details for a specific deal (by ID). Returns title, value, stage, probability, owner, associated contacts, and timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Deal ID | |
| _apiKey | Yes | Pipedrive API token |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Deal details | |
| success | No | Whether the request succeeded |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Deal details",
+ "properties": {
+ "add_time": {
+ "description": "Creation timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Deal ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "organization_id": {
+ "description": "Associated organization ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "owner_id": {
+ "description": "Deal owner ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "person_id": {
+ "description": "Associated contact ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "probability": {
+ "description": "Win probability percentage",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "stage_id": {
+ "description": "Pipeline stage ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Deal status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Deal title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "update_time": {
+ "description": "Last update timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "Deal value",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "Whether the request succeeded",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-pipedrive-api-key",
+ "id": 1
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds what data is returned (title, value, stage, probability, owner, contacts, timeline), which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by concise list of return fields. No filler.
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?
Output schema is present, so return values are covered. Description provides a good overview, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and params are fully documented. Enough for an agent to invoke 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 covers both parameters with descriptions (id and _apiKey), so description doesn't need to add more. Description's 'by ID' is redundant with schema.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'specific deal (by ID)' and lists returned fields. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pipedrive_list_deals (list) and pipedrive_get_person (different entity).
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?
States the intended use case: fetch complete details for a specific deal using its ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it vs alternatives like search or list, so only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and entity_profile, compare_entities, and deep_research all perform multi-source lookups. An agent would struggle to distinguish between them.
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx), lowercase (deep_research), and prefixed patterns (pipedrive_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). No unified verb_noun pattern exists across the set.
With 35 tools, the count is too high for a server named Pipedrive, which suggests a CRM focus. Many tools are unrelated to CRM (e.g., prediction market, weather, economic data), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.
The Pipedrive subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving basic CRUD incomplete. However, the broader data lookup tools cover a wide range of domains (financials, drugs, patents), so overall coverage is moderate but not fully coherent with the server name.