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 'company-specific filters' but provides no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having 'limit' and 'after' parameters), what happens when no results match, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a search tool with complex filtering capabilities.

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 - a single 6-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with 5 parameters, complex nested filtering structures, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or how to properly use the sophisticated filtering capabilities indicated by the schema. The minimal description fails to provide necessary context for effective use.

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 5 parameters (filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts), the description provides no meaningful information about any parameters. 'company-specific filters' vaguely hints at filterGroups but doesn't explain the complex nested structure, available operators, or how to construct valid queries. 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 'Search companies with company-specific filters' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('companies'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'company-specific filters' means. It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't specify how it differs from other CRM search tools like crm_search_contacts or crm_search_leads beyond the target resource.

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. There are multiple sibling search tools (crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads, crm_search_objects), but no indication of when this company-specific search is preferred over those other options or general listing tools.

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