Skip to main content
Glama

pipedrive

by io.usefulapi

List activities

pipedrive_list_activities
Read-only

List activities (tasks/events), optionally filtered by filter/owner/deal/person/org/done/updated_since. Pipedrive REST: GET /api/v2/activities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doneNoFilter by completion — true for done, false for not done.
limitNoMax results to return (1–500, default 100).
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous response's `next_cursor`.
org_idNoFilter by linked organization id.
deal_idNoFilter by linked deal id.
owner_idNoFilter by owner (user) id.
filter_idNoFilter by a saved filter id.
person_idNoFilter by linked person id.
updated_sinceNoOnly activities updated after this RFC 3339 timestamp, e.g. '2024-01-01T00:00:00Z'.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds the REST endpoint but no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or result size. It does not contradict the annotation, but adds minimal value beyond it.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The REST endpoint sentence is somewhat redundant for an agent but does not significantly bloat the description. It earns a 4 for overall efficiency.

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?

Given the comprehensive schema and readOnlyHint, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and filter capabilities. Pagination is already documented in the cursor parameter's description. It could explicitly state that it returns a list of activities, but 'List' implies that, making this complete enough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with all 9 parameters individually documented. The description merely lists the filter names without adding new semantic meaning, so it provides no value 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'activities', explicitly clarifies they are tasks/events, and enumerates filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipedrive_create_activity and pipedrive_list_deals.

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 indicates when to use the tool by stating it lists activities with optional filters, making the context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use a search tool instead), so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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