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 the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether this affects existing contacts, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 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 maximally concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While it's under-specified, what's there is 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 complex creation tool with 11 parameters (5 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'contact property' is, how it's used, what the parameters mean, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 11 parameters have schema-level documentation. The description provides zero information about any parameters - not even mentioning the 5 required ones (name, label, type, fieldType, groupName). For a complex tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate at all.

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 contact property' clearly states the action (create) and resource (contact property), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'crm_create_company_property' or 'crm_create_lead_property' - all follow the same 'create X property' pattern without differentiation. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when to use batch operations instead, or how this relates to other property management tools like 'crm_get_contact_properties'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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