Skip to main content
Glama

pipedrive

by io.usefulapi

Search deals

pipedrive_search_deals
Read-only

Search deals by term across selected fields. Pipedrive REST: GET /api/v2/deals/search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termYesSearch term (at least 2 characters, required).
limitNoMax results to return (1–500, default 100).
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous response's `next_cursor`.
fieldsNoComma-separated fields to search — any of 'custom_fields', 'notes', 'title'.
statusNoRestrict to deals with this status — 'open', 'won' or 'lost'.
person_idNoRestrict to deals linked to this person id.
exact_matchNoIf true, only exact matches (case-insensitive) are returned.
organization_idNoRestrict to deals linked to this organization id.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates this is a safe read operation, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds the REST GET endpoint but does not mention pagination behavior, default fields, or required permissions. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Search deals') and contains no redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 rich schema (8 well-documented parameters) and read-only annotation, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple search tool. The cursor parameter's description already implies pagination, so the lack of explicit return-format details is acceptable. Minor gaps exist, such as not explaining what 'selected fields' defaults to, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with all 8 parameters individually described. The description's mention of 'term across selected fields' adds no substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool searches deals by term across selected fields, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (search_organizations, search_persons) by explicitly targeting deals, and includes the REST endpoint for additional context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_deals or search_items. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with other deal-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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