HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. 'Validated properties' hints at validation but doesn't explain the validation process or error handling.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, doesn't explain parameter usage, and provides minimal context for proper tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'validated properties' which relates to the 'properties' parameter. However, it doesn't explain what 'contactId' represents or provide details about the nested properties object beyond validation. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this provides some but insufficient compensation.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing contact'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_update_company' or 'crm_update_lead', which have similar update patterns for different CRM entities.

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 like 'crm_batch_update_contacts' or 'crm_update_object'. It mentions 'validated properties' but doesn't explain what validation entails or when this tool is appropriate compared to other update methods.

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