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. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it doesn't address how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data by explaining return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for a tool that might involve data retrieval in a communications context.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter ('archived'), the description fails to explain what 'archived' means (e.g., whether it filters for archived definitions) or its default behavior. This leaves the parameter undocumented and unclear.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all subscription definitions for the portal'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'communications_get_subscription_status' by focusing on definitions rather than status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other communications tools like 'communications_get_preferences'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it should be used before subscribing contacts or how it relates to other communications tools. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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