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. 'Create a new task' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness, from a pure length perspective it's minimal and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

This is a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only the barest minimum information ('Create a new task') without explaining what parameters are needed, what the operation does, when to use it, or what to expect in return. For a tool of this complexity, the description is completely inadequate.

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 no parameters whatsoever, despite the input schema having 2 top-level parameters (properties and associations) with complex nested structures and 8 specific task properties. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails completely to compensate by explaining what parameters are needed or their purpose.

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 task' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'tasks_create'. It doesn't provide any additional specificity about what kind of task is being created, what system it's created in, or how it differs from other task-related tools like 'tasks_batch_create' or 'tasks_update'.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for tasks (tasks_batch_create, tasks_update, tasks_archive, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this single-create operation is appropriate versus batch operations or other task management functions.

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