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 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when invalid IDs or parameters are provided. The description mentions 'specific properties and associations' but doesn't explain the behavior around partial data retrieval or default responses.

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 that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose. While it could potentially be more structured with separate clauses for different aspects, it achieves good conciseness for its purpose.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, authentication needs, or provide examples. While it states the basic purpose, it leaves too many contextual gaps for a tool that retrieves specific data with filtering parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations' which hints at the three parameters (companyId, properties, associations), but doesn't explain their formats, constraints, or optionality. It adds some semantic meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'a single company by ID', making the purpose understandable. It adds specificity about 'with specific properties and associations' which distinguishes it from a basic get operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_object or crm_search_companies, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools available (like crm_get_object, crm_search_companies, crm_batch_read_objects), there's no indication of when this specific company retrieval tool is preferred or what prerequisites might exist. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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