Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hubspot-pipeline-mcp

hubspot-pipeline-mcp

by RynoJor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Deals missing fields

deals_missing_fields
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify open deals with empty required fields, listing which fields are missing to flag revenue at risk and $0 routing gaps.

Instructions

Deals with empty required fields, and which fields. An open deal whose contact has no email cannot be worked, so its amount is at risk; other gaps are routing/reporting costs, valued at $0.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "deals_missing_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows to list (totals always cover every match).
fieldsNoHubSpot internal property names to require. Prefix with 'contact.' to check the deal's associated contact. Default: amount, closedate, hubspot_owner_id, contact.email, contact.industry, contact.company_size, contact.region.
include_closedNoAlso check closed deals.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: how gaps are valued (a missing contact email on an open deal puts the amount at risk, whereas other gaps are $0 routing/reporting costs), which shapes how results should be interpreted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no wasted wording, and the core definition is front-loaded before the risk-valuation explanation. The opening fragment ('Deals with empty required fields') is slightly terse but not ambiguous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies exactly the missing piece — the valuation model behind the results — leaving nothing an agent needs before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the default field list and the contact. prefix convention, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or filter semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (deals) and the exact condition it surfaces (empty required fields) plus that it reports which fields are missing. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_deal or find_stalled_deals, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the risk framing — the agent can infer this tool is for spotting revenue-at-risk deals, but must reason it out rather than being told.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools