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 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'company property' is in this context, doesn't describe parameter meanings, doesn't provide behavioral context, and offers no guidance on usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters, their purposes, relationships, or constraints. This leaves the agent with only raw schema structure without semantic understanding of what each field means.

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 property' clearly states the action (create) and resource (company property), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_create_contact_property or crm_create_lead_property, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus other property creation 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or comparison to sibling tools like crm_create_contact_property or crm_create_lead_property. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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