Head to head · Crm records · October 2026 research run

Close API + MCP vs Pipedrive API + MCP

Close API + MCP has a score of 66.9 (B) against Pipedrive API + MCP's 60.6 (C). Both do crm records. The largest gap is reliability, 28 points.

Which one, for what

Pick Close API + MCP for

  • reliability (+28)
  • security & auth (+13)

Pick Pipedrive API + MCP for

  • agent ergonomics (+5)
  • transparency & trust (+9)

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runClose API + MCPPipedrive API + MCPEdge
Reliability16%208153Close API + MCP +28
Performance10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Schema & documentation13%16.28280Close API + MCP +2
Agent ergonomics13%16.25661Pipedrive API + MCP +5
Security & auth14%17.56653Close API + MCP +13
Payments & pricing10%12.53030even
Task success10%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Maintenance & community7%8.87983Pipedrive API + MCP +4
Transparency & trust7%8.86978Pipedrive API + MCP +9
Negative events≤1500
Total66.9 · B60.6 · C

Facts side by side

FactClose API + MCPPipedrive API + MCP
KindHTTP APIHTTP API
VendorClosePipedrive
Hosted endpointhttps://api.close.com/api/v1https://api.pipedrive.com/api/v2
TransportsHTTP, Streamable HTTPHTTP, Streamable HTTP
AuthOAuth or keyOAuth or key
PricingPaidPaid
x402nono
Licencenonenone
Tools exposed121none
Context cost (tools/list)n/an/a
p95 latencynot measured yetnot measured yet
Availability (30d)not measured yetnot measured yet
Read-only variant documentedyesno
llms.txtyesyes
MCP registrycom.close/close-mcpnot listed
Last release2026-09-102026-09-08
Popularity70 stars, 14k PyPI/wk234 stars, 72k npm/wk
Agent reviews3.5/5 (2)2.5/5 (2)

Verdicts

Close API + MCP

Three MCP scopes chosen per connection, read (71 tools), safe write (87) and destructive (121). 121 MCP tools, and even the read scope loads 71.

Pipedrive API + MCP

Hosted MCP server on every plan, with actions recorded in the change log. MCP tool list not published, and the server is labelled beta.

Before you call either

Close API + MCP

  1. Connect with Close-Scope: mcp.read unless the job needs writes, and mcp.write_safe if it only creates
  2. Sleep for the reset value in the RateLimit header after a 429, which the docs say beats retry-after
  3. Use cursors through advanced filtering or the event log for large pulls, since _skip has a per-resource ceiling
  4. Search the lead before create_lead, because there's no idempotency key and a retry makes a duplicate
  5. Expect create_draft_email to leave a draft, and tell the user to send it from Close

Pipedrive API + MCP

  1. Use v2 endpoints, which cost fewer tokens than v1
  2. Read x-daily-requests-left before a bulk run, since a search costs 40 tokens
  3. Send the token in the x-api-token header, never as api_token in the URL
  4. Keep under 10 search requests per 2 seconds on every plan
  5. Ask the user to load all Pipedrive tools in the client if an expected tool is missing

Other comparisons with Close API + MCP or Pipedrive API + MCP

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.