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 states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, whether it requires authentication, what happens with invalid inputs, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the key information. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the returned status information includes, how errors are handled, or provide any context about the subscription system. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output documentation, this brief description leaves too many gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'subscription status for multiple contacts', which hints at the purpose of 'subscriptionId' and 'contactIds' parameters, but doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or constraints. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to adequately document the two required 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 clearly states the action ('Get subscription status') and target ('for multiple contacts'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'communications_get_preferences' or 'communications_get_subscription_definitions' by focusing on status retrieval rather than definitions or preferences. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' operations in the communications domain, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when this tool is appropriate compared to other communications tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_subscribe_contact', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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