Skip to main content
Glama

pipedrive

by io.usefulapi

Create deal

pipedrive_create_deal
Destructive

Create a new deal. title is required; link it to a person/org/pipeline/stage/owner as needed. Pipedrive REST: POST /api/v2/deals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesDeal title (required).
valueNoDeal monetary value.
org_idNoLink to this organization id.
statusNoDeal status — 'open' (default), 'won' or 'lost'.
currencyNoCurrency code for `value`, e.g. 'USD'.
owner_idNoAssign to this owner (user) id.
stage_idNoPlace in this stage id.
person_idNoLink to this person id.
visible_toNoVisibility group id (Pipedrive visibility setting).
pipeline_idNoPlace in this pipeline id.
expected_close_dateNoExpected close date, yyyy-mm-dd.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, which already signals that this tool modifies state, and the description accurately identifies it as a creation operation. The description adds the REST endpoint but doesn't disclose idempotency, required permissions, or post-condition behavior beyond what the annotation implies. It doesn't contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and essential requirement. It has no filler and effectively communicates the tool's purpose and key usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create tool with 11 parameters, the description is brief but sufficient given the complete schema and the destructiveHint annotation. It does not explain the return value or error cases, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, so a note on return behavior would be helpful but not essential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds high-level guidance that title is required and suggests connecting the deal to related entities (person/org/pipeline/stage/owner), which helps agents understand parameter relationships and usage context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'deal' and includes the REST endpoint, making the tool's function unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_deals, get_deal, or search_deals by focusing on the creation action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states that title is required and suggests linking to person/org/pipeline/stage/owner as needed, providing clear context on how to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the verb 'Create' and sibling names make the use case obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All pipedrive toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between create, get, list, and search operations. The global search tool is explicitly differentiated from entity-specific searches, and pipelines/stages/current_user are unique. No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_deals, get_person, create_activity), with the exception of 'add_note' using 'add' instead of 'create'. This is a minor deviation that does not cause confusion, but the inconsistency between add and create is noticeable.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the server covers a broad set of CRM entities and operations, which is reasonable for the scope. While it is on the heavier side, each tool serves a distinct function and none are redundant. The count feels justified for a comprehensive CRM integration.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks update and delete operations for all entities, and there is no create operation for organizations, pipelines, or stages. This creates significant gaps that would prevent agents from modifying existing records or creating certain entities. The read and search capabilities are solid, but the lifecycle coverage is severely incomplete.

Resources