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 but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial/full, error handling for partial failures, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. 'Update multiple' implies mutation but lacks detail on consequences.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action ('Update multiple CRM objects') followed by operational context ('in a single request'). Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets updated, how properties are handled, error responses, or return values. Given the complexity of batch operations and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed for safe usage.

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 adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' enum values represent or the structure of 'inputs' array with id/properties objects. However, the schema itself is relatively clear with enum and nested structure, providing a baseline understanding despite the description 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 action ('Update multiple') and resource ('CRM objects') with the operational context ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from single-update tools like crm_update_object but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch tools like crm_batch_update_companies or crm_batch_update_contacts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_batch_update_companies, crm_batch_update_contacts, or crm_batch_update_leads. The description implies batch operations but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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