HubSpot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all associations,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (hinted by 'after' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' means in context (e.g., if it returns a complete list or requires pagination). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), parameter meanings, and output format. For a tool that retrieves associations between objects, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with 0% schema coverage and no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'associations of a specific type between objects,' which loosely relates to 'fromObjectType' and 'toObjectType,' but doesn't explain the meaning of parameters like 'fromObjectId,' 'after' (for pagination), or 'limit' (for result size). With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds very little semantic value.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('associations of a specific type between objects'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crm_list_association_types' (which lists types rather than instances) and 'crm_get_object' (which retrieves single objects rather than associations). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the CRM context or differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'crm_get_company'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid object IDs), exclusions (e.g., not for creating associations), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'crm_list_objects' or 'crm_search_objects' that might retrieve related data. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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