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. It mentions 'contact-specific filters' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after' in schema), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity.

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, nested objects in schema, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the input structure, output format, or usage context sufficiently. For a search tool with rich filtering capabilities, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it correctly.

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 only vaguely references 'contact-specific filters', which partially relates to 'filterGroups', but doesn't explain the other 4 parameters (properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 contacts with contact-specific filters' states the verb (search) and resource (contacts), but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what constitutes 'contact-specific filters' versus general filters, nor does it clearly distinguish from sibling tools like crm_search_companies or crm_search_leads beyond the resource type.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for searching contacts, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over crm_list_objects or crm_get_contact, or any constraints. Sibling tools include other search variants, but no comparison is offered.

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