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 but offers nothing beyond the basic 'create' action. It doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a creation tool with complex nested parameters, this is critically insufficient.

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 four words, which is appropriately brief for what it does cover. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being severely under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 of the input schema (nested objects, 16+ properties, associations), absence of annotations, lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't prepare an agent for what's required to successfully invoke this tool or what to expect in return.

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 2 parameters (one required), the description provides zero information about what parameters are needed or what they mean. The input schema shows complex nested objects with numerous properties and associations, but the description doesn't even hint at what data must be provided to create an email record.

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 'Create a new email record' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'emails_create' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'emails_batch_create' or other creation tools in the system, nor does it specify what constitutes an 'email record' in this 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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools including 'emails_batch_create', 'emails_update', and various CRM creation tools, there's no indication of whether this is for single email creation, when batch operations might be preferable, or what prerequisites might exist.

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