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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify important aspects like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the properties are returned in. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with parameters.

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 at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is efficient with no redundant phrasing.

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 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'properties' means in this context (metadata vs. values), doesn't address the parameters, and provides no information about the return format or behavior. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.

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 for its 2 parameters ('archived' and 'properties'), and the tool description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they affect the operation. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess about their purpose and usage.

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 'Get all properties for companies' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('properties for companies'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify whether this retrieves metadata about company properties or actual property values, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_company' or 'crm_get_contact_properties' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 are multiple sibling tools related to CRM properties (e.g., 'crm_get_contact_properties', 'crm_get_lead_properties') and company operations (e.g., 'crm_get_company', 'crm_search_companies'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those options.

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