pipedrive_get_personGet full contact details by ID. Returns name, emails, phones, organization, associated deals, and custom fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Person ID | |
| _apiKey | Yes | Pipedrive API token |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Contact 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": "Contact details",
+ "properties": {
+ "add_time": {
+ "description": "Creation timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "email": {
+ "description": "Email addresses",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "value": {
+ "description": "Email address",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Contact ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Contact name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "org_id": {
+ "description": "Associated organization ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "phone": {
+ "description": "Phone numbers",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "value": {
+ "description": "Phone number",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "update_time": {
+ "description": "Last update timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the response contents (emails, phones, organization, associated deals, custom fields), giving the agent a clear expectation of what the tool returns without needing to inspect the output schema.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return payload. Every word contributes; no filler or 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 GET-by-ID tool, the description is fully adequate: annotations declare safety, schema fully documents parameters, output schema presumably details the response shape, and the description adds the human-readable summary of returned fields.
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%, with both id and _apiKey already documented. The description reinforces the 'by ID' usage but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool fetches full contact details by ID, listing the returned fields (name, emails, phones, organization, deals, custom fields). This specific verb+resource+ID scope distinguishes it from siblings like pipedrive_list_persons or pipedrive_get_deal.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for retrieving a single person's full record when you have the ID, contrasting with list/search tools. While no explicit alternatives are named, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.