HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validated properties' but doesn't explain what validation entails (e.g., format checks, required fields, error handling). It also omits critical details like whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on success/failure, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 with a single sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient in structure, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or the semantics of key parameters like 'associations', leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It hints at 'validated properties' but doesn't clarify which properties are mandatory, their validation rules, or the purpose of the 'associations' parameter. With two parameters (one required) and complex nested structures, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new lead'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_create_contact' or 'crm_create_company', which have similar creation patterns but target 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_batch_create_leads' for bulk operations or 'crm_update_lead' for modifications. It also lacks prerequisites, such as required permissions or system states needed for lead creation.

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