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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating parameter guidance. The front-loaded information is clear and direct.

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 read tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or provide enough parameter detail. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, it should do more to guide the agent.

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. It mentions 'specific properties and associations' which maps to the 'properties' and 'associations' parameters, and 'by ID' maps to 'contactId'. However, it doesn't explain the format of property names, the meaning of association types, or provide examples. It adds basic meaning but leaves parameters under-specified.

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 'contact by ID', specifying it retrieves 'a single contact' with 'specific properties and associations'. It distinguishes from list/search siblings by focusing on single-record retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like crm_search_contacts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific contact when the ID is known, but doesn't mention when to choose crm_get_contact over crm_search_contacts or crm_batch_read_objects, nor does it discuss prerequisites or exclusions.

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