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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a tool with 4 parameters and no 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?

The description is maximally concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, or provide any context about the CRM system. Given the complexity implied by the parameter structure and sibling tools, this description leaves too many unanswered questions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' accepts, what format 'objectId' expects, what 'properties' array should contain, or what 'associations' means. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('single CRM object by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from list/search operations by specifying 'single' and 'by ID', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_company or crm_get_contact which appear to be more specific versions of this generic tool.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including specific object getters (crm_get_company, crm_get_contact, etc.) and batch operations, the description offers no indication of when this generic getter is preferred over the specific ones or when batch operations might be more appropriate.

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