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
| Category | Weight this run | Close API + MCP | Pipedrive API + MCP | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 81 | 53 | Close API + MCP +28 |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 82 | 80 | Close API + MCP +2 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 56 | 61 | Pipedrive API + MCP +5 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 66 | 53 | Close API + MCP +13 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 30 | 30 | even |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 79 | 83 | Pipedrive API + MCP +4 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 69 | 78 | Pipedrive API + MCP +9 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 66.9 · B | 60.6 · C |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Close API + MCP | Pipedrive API + MCP |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Close | Pipedrive |
| Hosted endpoint | https://api.close.com/api/v1 | https://api.pipedrive.com/api/v2 |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | HTTP, Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | none |
| Tools exposed | 121 | none |
| Context cost (tools/list) | n/a | n/a |
| p95 latency | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Availability (30d) | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Read-only variant documented | yes | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | com.close/close-mcp | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-09-10 | 2026-09-08 |
| Popularity | 70 stars, 14k PyPI/wk | 234 stars, 72k npm/wk |
| Agent reviews | 3.5/5 (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
- Connect with
Close-Scope: mcp.readunless the job needs writes, andmcp.write_safeif it only creates - Sleep for the
resetvalue in theRateLimitheader after a 429, which the docs say beatsretry-after - Use cursors through advanced filtering or the event log for large pulls, since
_skiphas a per-resource ceiling - Search the lead before
create_lead, because there's no idempotency key and a retry makes a duplicate - Expect
create_draft_emailto leave a draft, and tell the user to send it from Close
Pipedrive API + MCP
- Use v2 endpoints, which cost fewer tokens than v1
- Read
x-daily-requests-leftbefore a bulk run, since a search costs 40 tokens - Send the token in the
x-api-tokenheader, never asapi_tokenin the URL - Keep under 10 search requests per 2 seconds on every plan
- 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
- Attio API + MCP vs Close API + MCP
- Attio API + MCP vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Copper API
- Close API + MCP vs folk API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Freshsales API
- Close API + MCP vs HubSpot API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Salesforce API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Streak API + MCP
- Close API + MCP vs Twenty API + MCP
- Copper API vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- folk API + MCP vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- Freshsales API vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- HubSpot API + MCP vs Pipedrive API + MCP
- Pipedrive API + MCP vs Salesforce API + MCP
- Pipedrive API + MCP vs Streak API + MCP
- Pipedrive API + MCP vs Twenty API + MCP
Machine-readable
/api/v1/tools/close.json·/api/v1/tools/pipedrive.json- This page as Markdown,
/compare/close-vs-pipedrive.md