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. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which hints at some capabilities, but doesn't describe what 'list' entails operationally (e.g., is it read-only? Does it require specific permissions? What's the default sort order? Are there rate limits?). For a tool with 5 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'List' (action), 'CRM objects' (resource), 'specific type' (key constraint), 'optional filtering and pagination' (capabilities). No wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema), doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like safety or permissions, and leaves most parameter semantics unclear. For a list operation with multiple filter options, this provides inadequate context for reliable agent invocation.

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 type' (mapping to objectType), 'optional filtering' (vaguely suggesting properties, archived, or other filters), and 'pagination' (hinting at after and limit). However, it doesn't explain what 'properties' array means, what 'after' cursor represents, or the meaning of the 'archived' flag. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 ('List') and resource ('CRM objects of a specific type'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like crm_get_object (singular fetch) and crm_search_objects (search with queries), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The mention of 'specific type' aligns with the objectType parameter, providing good 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 implies usage for listing objects with filtering and pagination, suggesting it's for bulk retrieval rather than single-object operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like crm_search_objects (which might support more complex queries) or crm_batch_read_objects (which might handle multiple IDs). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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