Skip to main content
Glama

pipedrive

by io.usefulapi

Search items

pipedrive_search_items
Read-only

Global search across multiple item types (deals, persons, organizations, products, leads, files, etc.). Pipedrive REST: GET /api/v2/itemSearch.

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 within (depends on item types).
item_typesNoComma-separated item types to search — any of 'deal', 'person', 'organization', 'product', 'lead', 'file', 'mail_attachment', 'project'.
exact_matchNoIf true, only exact matches (case-insensitive) are returned.
search_for_related_itemsNoIf true, also return items related to the matches (e.g. deals of a matched person).

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 include readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the REST endpoint and the multi-type scope, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination details, rate limits, or return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose 'Global search'. It provides the API endpoint as additional developer context without any fluff or redundant content.

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 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint, the description is quite complete for tool selection. It lacks an explanation of the return format, but since no output schema exists and the search is polymorphic, this gap is minor. The overall purpose and scope are clear.

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%, so all 7 parameters are already documented thoroughly. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema; for example, it mentions 'item types' but that is already detailed in the item_types parameter description. 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 clearly states 'Global search across multiple item types' which is a specific verb+resource+scope, and lists example item types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pipedrive_search_deals by emphasizing 'global' and 'multiple item types'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching across multiple item types. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_deals or search_persons for single-type searches, so it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative naming.

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