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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what validation entails, error handling, or what happens on success. The mention of 'validated properties' hints at input validation but doesn't explain what validation occurs or its 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about the tool's function.

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 creation tool with complex nested parameters (2 parameters with deep nesting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (return values, IDs), doesn't cover parameter details, and provides minimal behavioral context. The conciseness comes at the expense of completeness for this moderately complex tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'validated properties' which relates to the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't explain what properties are available, their formats, or required fields. It completely ignores the 'associations' parameter. For a tool with 2 parameters (one complex nested object), this minimal parameter guidance is inadequate.

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 'Create a new company with validated properties' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('company'), and the 'validated properties' adds specificity about input handling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_create_contact or crm_create_lead, which are similar creation operations for different CRM entities.

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. There are many sibling tools for creating different CRM entities (companies, contacts, leads, objects) and batch operations, but the description doesn't mention any of these alternatives or specify prerequisites for company creation.

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