HubSpot Integrations MCP
Server Details
MCP server for the HubSpot Integrations Center HubDB: search and retrieve integration data.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_integration retrieves a specific integration by ID, while search_integration searches by query string. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_integration, search_integration) with snake_case styling. The naming is predictable and uniform across the set.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for managing integrations, lacking essential CRUD operations like create, update, or delete. The count is too low for the apparent scope of an integrations center.
The toolset is severely incomplete for an integrations domain, missing core lifecycle operations such as creating, updating, or deleting integrations. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform basic management tasks.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_integrationAInspect
Retrieve a specific integration by its ID from the HubSpot Integrations Center. Returns the full integration details including title, summary, body, URL, categories, and last updated date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The integration ID to retrieve (format: display-name-product-name) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the read-only nature ('Retrieve') and details what information is returned, but does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, source, and return details without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on error handling or behavioral constraints, which would be beneficial for a read operation with no annotations.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'id' with its type and format. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('a specific integration by its ID from the HubSpot Integrations Center'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_integration' by focusing on single-item retrieval rather than searching. It provides concrete details about what is returned.
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 usage context by specifying retrieval by ID from the HubSpot Integrations Center, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_integration' or provide exclusions. It gives clear context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_integrationAInspect
Search for integrations in the HubSpot Integrations Center by query string. Returns matching integrations with their details including title, summary, body, URL, categories, and last updated date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query to find integrations. Searches across title, summary, body, and categories. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search scope ('Searches across title, summary, body, and categories') and return format ('Returns matching integrations with their details...'), which adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks information about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and input, the second specifies return details. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, input context, and return format adequately. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like result limits or error cases to fully compensate for the lack of structured fields.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'query' with its description. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the search scope, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.
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 specific action ('Search for integrations'), the target resource ('HubSpot Integrations Center'), and the scope ('by query string'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_integration' by emphasizing search functionality rather than retrieval of a specific integration.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Search for integrations... by query string'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tool 'get_integration' is not referenced, though the search focus implies differentiation from direct retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail — every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control — enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management — store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts — get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption — public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics — see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback — users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!