HubSpot MCP

crm_get_contact

Retrieve a HubSpot CRM contact by ID with selected properties and related records like companies, deals, or engagements.

Instructions

Get a single contact by ID with specific properties and associations

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contactId": "<contactId>"
    },
    "name": "crm_get_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contactId`	Yes
`properties`	No
`associations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. Missing: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose, zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'single contact by ID', 'specific properties and associations') earns its place by clarifying scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly beyond basic intent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by ID' (mapping to contactId) and 'specific properties and associations' (hinting at the properties and associations parameters), adding some meaning. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats, optionality, or the enum values for associations.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single contact by ID'), and specifies the scope ('with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes from list/search siblings but doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'crm_search_contacts' or 'crm_list_objects'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you need a specific contact by ID with optional property/association filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'crm_search_contacts' for broader queries or 'crm_list_objects' for bulk retrieval. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server