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. 'Update an existing email record' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update'), making it easy to parse. While brevity can lead to underspecification, in terms of structure and efficiency, this description earns full marks for being direct and to the point.

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 (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, parameter roles, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a mutation tool that modifies email records with multiple properties, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to 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?

The description mentions 'update' and 'email record,' which loosely relates to the parameters (emailId and properties object), but it adds no specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema itself lacks descriptions for all parameters. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what emailId is, what properties can include, or the significance of required fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema defines structure, but value addition is minimal.

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 'Update an existing email record' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('email record'), but it's quite generic. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like emails_batch_update or other update tools (calls_update, meetings_update, etc.), nor does it specify what aspects of an email can be updated. While the purpose is understandable, it lacks the specificity needed for optimal agent selection.

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 sibling tools like emails_batch_update, emails_create, and emails_archive available, the agent receives no indication about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing emailId), when batch operations might be preferable, or what constitutes an 'existing email record.' This absence of context makes tool selection challenging.

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