HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Unsubscribe' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects historical communications, what confirmation or response to expect, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the core functionality and follows good front-loading principles by stating the primary action immediately.

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 3 parameters (including complex enum-based parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address parameter meanings, behavioral implications, usage context, or expected outcomes. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'contactId', 'portalSubscriptionLegalBasis', or 'portalSubscriptionLegalBasisExplanation' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess about the legal basis parameters' purpose and relationship to the unsubscribe action.

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 ('Unsubscribe') and resource ('a contact from all email communications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status', but the specificity of 'all email communications' provides some distinction from more granular subscription management tools.

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 like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, side effects, or appropriate contexts for invoking this unsubscribe operation versus other subscription management approaches.

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