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) |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a specific integration by ID, the other searches by query string. There is no ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_integration and search_integration. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its stated purpose. While the scope is narrow, a typical catalog would benefit from at least a list operation, making the count borderline.
The tool set covers retrieval and search but lacks a dedicated list-all operation, which is a common need for browsing integrations. Users may work around this via search, but the gap is notable.