Skip to main content
Glama

pipedrive

by io.usefulapi

List notes

pipedrive_list_notes
Read-only

List notes, optionally filtered by user/deal/person/org/lead. Uses v1 (v2 has no notes endpoint) with start+limit pagination. Pipedrive REST: GET /api/v1/notes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort expression, e.g. 'add_time DESC'.
limitNoMax results to return (v1 limit).
startNoPagination offset (v1 start; default 0).
org_idNoFilter by linked organization id.
deal_idNoFilter by linked deal id.
lead_idNoFilter by linked lead id (a UUID string).
user_idNoFilter by the note author (user) id.
person_idNoFilter by linked person id.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds pagination behavior (start+limit) and API version context, but does not explain default sorting, filter combination semantics, or error/response details. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a compact 3-sentence structure that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds version and pagination details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With 8 optional filter parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context including the API endpoint and pagination approach. It lacks explicit guidance on how filters combine or what the default response looks like, but the schema and readOnlyHint cover much of the necessary context, making it mostly complete for a list operation.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filtered by user/deal/person/org/lead' gives a high-level grouping, but adds little beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states 'List notes' and elaborates with optional filter dimensions (user/deal/person/org/lead), making the verb and resource explicit. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pipedrive_add_note by focusing on listing rather than creating.

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 notes optional filters, indicating when you'd use this to retrieve specific subsets of notes. It also mentions v1 has no v2 equivalent, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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