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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset params but not explained), or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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, making it front-loaded and easy to parse quickly. It directly states the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'an object' but doesn't explain the 7 parameters (e.g., objectType, objectId, startTime, endTime, activityTypes, limit, offset) or their roles, leaving semantics undocumented beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 ('Get') and resource ('engagements associated with an object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list', which might retrieve engagements differently, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing object, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list' for comparison, leaving usage unclear.

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