HubSpot MCP Server

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 but provides almost none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated, what the response format might be, or any rate limits. For a search tool with complex filtering capabilities, this lack of behavioral information is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, as a standalone assessment of conciseness, it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. The single sentence is 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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. A search tool with complex filtering capabilities requires much more explanation about parameter usage, expected behaviors, and output format. The minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool use.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'specific filters' which only hints at the filterGroups parameter but doesn't explain any of the parameters' purposes, relationships, or usage. It doesn't mention properties, limit, after, or sorts parameters at all, leaving them completely undocumented.

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 'Search calls with specific filters' states the basic action but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what kind of search this is (e.g., full-text, filtered list, advanced query) or how it differs from sibling tools like calls_list or calls_get. The verb 'search' is generic and doesn't convey the specific functionality implied by the complex input schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like calls_list, calls_get, and other search tools (emails_search, meetings_search), there's no indication of when this specific calls_search tool is appropriate versus those other options. The description lacks any context about use cases or prerequisites.

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