HubSpot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if updates are atomic or partial, error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary details.

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 complexity of a batch update operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context about behavior, error handling, permissions, and response format, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies an array of lead updates but doesn't explain the structure or semantics of 'inputs' beyond what the schema already defines. With 1 parameter documented in the schema, the baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Update') and resource ('multiple leads'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling batch tools like 'crm_batch_update_companies' or 'crm_batch_update_contacts', which follow the same pattern for different CRM 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 like 'crm_update_lead' (for single updates) or other batch tools. It mentions 'in a single request' but doesn't explain the trade-offs or prerequisites for batch operations.

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