HubSpot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid task IDs. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with parameters.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose. While under-specified, it's efficiently structured without redundancy or 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how parameters work, or behavioral aspects. The minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for proper tool 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. It mentions 'specific task' which hints at the taskId parameter, but doesn't explain the 'properties' or 'associations' parameters at all. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 'Get details of a specific task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), but it's vague about what 'details' includes and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like tasks_list or tasks_search. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_list or tasks_search. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a single task, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with sibling tools. Minimal implied usage from the name alone.

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