HubSpot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Create') without mentioning permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves critical aspects like mutation impact, authentication needs, or rate limits unspecified.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the basic action, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral expectations, or how it fits among sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the three parameters (objectType, properties, associations), their purposes, or expected formats. It 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 'Create a new CRM object' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it specifies the resource (CRM object), it lacks detail about what constitutes a CRM object or how it differs from sibling tools like crm_create_company or crm_create_contact, which are more specific.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., crm_create_company, crm_create_contact, crm_batch_create_objects), the description fails to indicate scenarios where this generic creation tool is preferred over specific ones or batch operations.

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