Create a HubSpot support ticket to log and track an issue, optionally linking it to an existing contact for context.
Create a new HubSpot support ticket, optionally associated with an existing contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | Ticket body / description of the issue. | |
| subject | Yes | ||
| priority | No | ||
| contactId | No | If provided, associates the ticket with this contact. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that creation is a write operation and that contact association is optional, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or return values. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and object with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it highly efficient.
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 create tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits return-format expectations, prerequisites, and any side-effect/error behavior. The schema covers half the parameters but the description does not round out the missing half or the operational 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%; subject and priority lack descriptions. The description adds 'existing contact' context for contactId but does not clarify subject, content, or priority semantics, so it only partially compensates for the schema gaps.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'HubSpot support ticket' and notes the optional contact association, which clearly identifies the tool's function. It differentiates from search_contacts/search_tickets by naming the create action, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling create tools.
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?
It states the action and the optional existing-contact association, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as create_contact/create_deal for other objects. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.