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 but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies it), what permissions might be required, whether it returns paginated results, what format the properties come in, or any error conditions. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the CRM domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, return format, or differentiation from similar tools. For a property retrieval operation in a complex CRM system, this leaves the agent with insufficient 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'archived' and 'properties' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters - it doesn't explain what 'archived' filters, what the 'properties' array should contain, or whether both are optional. With 2 undocumented parameters and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 leads' clearly states the action (get) and resource (lead properties), but it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_lead (which presumably gets lead data rather than properties) or crm_get_company_properties/crm_get_contact_properties (which get properties for other entity types). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'properties' means in this context.

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 siblings like crm_get_lead (gets lead data), crm_search_leads (searches leads), and crm_create_lead_property (creates properties), there's no indication of when this specific property-retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other lead-related operations. Usage context is completely absent.

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