HubSpot MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid filters. For a search tool with 6 parameters and complex filtering logic, this is inadequate.

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, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly 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's complexity (6 parameters with nested filtering logic, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, error handling, or how to interpret the various parameter types. For a sophisticated search tool, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 for undocumented parameters. The description only mentions 'filters' generally, ignoring the other 5 parameters (objectType, properties, limit, after, sorts). It doesn't explain what 'CRM objects' encompasses or how filters work, leaving critical parameter semantics unclear.

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 CRM objects using filters' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('CRM objects'), but it's vague about what 'objects' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling search tools like crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, and crm_search_leads. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 multiple sibling search tools for specific object types (companies, contacts, leads) and a general crm_list_objects, there's no indication of when this filtered search is preferred over those options. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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