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. 'Update multiple companies' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't describe permissions required, whether updates are partial or full, error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a batch 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, immediately conveying the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 batch mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about permissions, error handling, input structure, and expected responses, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'multiple companies' but doesn't explain the 'inputs' parameter structure, required 'id' and 'properties' fields, or the nested properties like 'lifecyclestage' with its enum values. The description adds no meaningful parameter details beyond what's inferred from the tool name.

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 ('Update multiple companies') and resource ('companies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from single-update tools like 'crm_update_company' by specifying 'in a single request' for batch operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch tools like 'crm_batch_update_contacts' or 'crm_batch_update_objects'.

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 (e.g., needing company IDs), compare it to single-update tools like 'crm_update_company' or other batch tools like 'crm_batch_update_objects', or specify use cases like bulk data correction or mass updates.

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