HubSpot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all properties for contacts' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all properties for contacts'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly in a real-world context.

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 description mentions 'all properties' but doesn't explain the two parameters ('archived' and 'properties') from the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It fails to clarify what 'archived' filters or what 'properties' array contains (e.g., specific property names). With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate adequately for undocumented parameters.

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 contacts' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('properties for contacts'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact' (which gets contact details) or 'crm_get_company_properties' (which gets properties for companies), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus related ones.

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 sibling tools like 'crm_get_contact' (for contact details) and 'crm_get_company_properties' (for company properties), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This forces the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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