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 but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, or response format. 'Get' implies safe retrieval, but no explicit safety guarantees are given.

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 core functionality without wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though could be slightly more structured by separating ID requirement from optional fields.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. While it covers the basic action, it lacks depth needed for safe and effective use by an AI 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%, but the description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations', which maps to the three parameters (leadId, properties, associations). However, it doesn't explain parameter formats, optionality, or the meaning of 'specific properties' versus the schema's generic array. The description adds basic meaning but leaves significant gaps.

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 lead by ID') with additional scope ('with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes from generic 'crm_get_object' by specifying lead retrieval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'crm_get_lead_properties' which might overlap in 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_get_object' (for generic objects) or 'crm_get_lead_properties' (for properties only). The description implies it's for retrieving a specific lead with optional details, but doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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