HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it returns archived notes by default, or what the response format looks like. The mention of 'optional filtering' is vague about implementation details.

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 list operation and front-loads the core functionality.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the filtering mechanism, pagination approach, response format, or how this differs from other note-related tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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 for 5 parameters, the description must compensate but only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining what parameters control filtering. It doesn't clarify the meaning of 'limit', 'after', 'properties', 'associations', or 'archived' parameters, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 'List all notes with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('notes'), and specifies scope ('all notes') with capability ('optional filtering'). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like notes_search or notes_get, but provides a complete basic purpose statement.

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 notes_search, notes_get, or notes_batch_read. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what types of filtering are available or when filtering would be appropriate versus using a search tool.

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