HubSpot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to fields not included in the update (partial vs. full replacement), whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, which is efficient for stating the basic purpose. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness—it's front-loaded but lacks necessary details. While not wasteful, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior (partial/full), required permissions, error conditions, or return values. Given the context of sibling batch operations and rich parameter structure, more completeness is needed.

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 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, failing to compensate for this gap. With 2 top-level parameters (callId and properties) and 9 nested properties under 'properties', the agent receives no semantic guidance about what these parameters represent or how to use them.

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 'Update an existing call record' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('call record'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'calls_batch_update' or other update tools in the server, leaving ambiguity about when to use this single-record update versus batch operations.

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 siblings like 'calls_batch_update' and 'calls_update' (presumably for single vs. batch operations), the agent receives no explicit or implied direction about choosing between them, nor any prerequisites or constraints for using this tool.

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