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. It mentions 'search' and 'filters' but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination with 'limit' and 'after'), or any rate limits. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.

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 (5 parameters with nested structures like 'filterGroups' and 'sorts'), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to construct filters, what properties are available, how sorting works, or what the return format is. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely references 'specific filters', which partially hints at 'filterGroups' but doesn't explain the other parameters ('properties', 'limit', 'after', 'sorts') or their relationships. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 meetings with specific filters' states the verb ('search') and resource ('meetings'), but it's vague about what constitutes 'specific filters' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'meetings_list' or 'meetings_get'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation from alternatives.

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 like 'meetings_list' (which might list all meetings without filters) or 'meetings_get' (which retrieves a single meeting). The description implies filtering but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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