HubSpot Integrations MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (title, summary, body, URL, categories, last updated date), but it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or read-only behavior explicitly. The added detail about return fields is useful but limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it returns. It could improve by mentioning the sibling tool for searches, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the 'id' parameter with a format description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific integration by its ID from the HubSpot Integrations Center'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_integration' by emphasizing retrieval by ID rather than searching.

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

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

The description implies use when you have a specific integration ID, but it does not explicitly reference the alternative 'search_integration' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. This is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that this is a search returning details (title, summary, body, URL, categories, last updated date), but it does not mention pagination, result limits, authentication, or read-only status. For a simple search tool this is adequate but not highly informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and return fields without any filler. Every phrase adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose and return contents. It omits potential details like pagination or max results, which could matter for large searches, but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward search endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage; the tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema's query description already states (searches across title, summary, body, and categories). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a search operation with a specific verb ('Search for integrations') and resource ('HubSpot Integrations Center'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_integration' by implying a list/search behavior rather than a direct retrieval.

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

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

The description explains when to use the tool: to search for integrations by query string. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for a single integration, use get_integration'), so it stops short of a full 5, but the search-vs-get distinction is contextually clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.