push_opportunity_to_hubspotCreates/reuses a HubSpot company/contact, then creates an AlpineLead deal and follow-up task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| website | No | ||
| why_now | No | ||
| next_action | No | JETZT ANSCHREIBEN | |
| company_name | Yes | ||
| contact_name | No | ||
| contact_role | No | ||
| opportunity_score | No | ||
| recommended_service | No | ||
| best_sales_opportunity | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds the exact side effects: HubSpot company/contact creation/reuse, an AlpineLead deal, and a follow-up task. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not explain reuse matching or duplicate behavior.
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?
A single sentence states the complete workflow with no filler words. The main action is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes meaning.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering side effects, the core behavior is adequately conveyed. However, critical context is missing: how existing companies/contacts are matched for reuse, whether repeated calls can create duplicate deals, and which parameters map to which created object.
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 description contains no parameter-level guidance, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. The schema titles are informative, but the description itself adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters.
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 identifies a concrete workflow: it creates or reuses a HubSpot company/contact and then creates an AlpineLead deal and follow-up task. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling list, none of which describe this same object lifecycle.
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?
There is no guidance about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The action itself implies 'use when an opportunity needs to be pushed to HubSpot,' but that is inferred rather than stated.
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.
Several tools overlap or duplicate: run_sales_mission intentionally duplicates check_sales_mission_status and get_sales_mission_result, and there are multiple capability/routing tools (get_capabilities, match_alpinelead_capability, get_alpinelead_recommendation_packet, recommend_next_tool) with similar purposes. Blank descriptions for several nexus_* tools make their boundaries even harder for an agent to determine.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The set mixes prefixed families (agentpub_*, nexus_*, predictive_*_info), noun-only names (winning_pattern, learning_engine), reversed noun_verb names (radar_check, hunter_run), and get/check/run/status variants for closely related operations.
56 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server surface. Many are one-off info, status, or diagnostic tools that could be consolidated into parameterized tools. This places an excessive routing burden on the agent and dilutes the core sales workflow.
The core lead-to-CRM workflow is fairly complete: discovery, analysis, qualification, sales kit generation, HubSpot push, and learning/feedback loops are covered. However, there are notable gaps such as no way to list or retrieve saved analyses, no explicit stop/cancel for Hunter or Sales Mission runs, and no update/cancel operations for Nexus tasks.