Fetch a HubSpot deal by ID to access its stage, amount, close date, and associated contacts.
Fetch a single HubSpot deal by ID, including stage, amount, close date, and the contacts associated with it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dealId | Yes | HubSpot deal ID (from search_deals). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reasonably describes a read operation and lists the fields/associations returned, but it is silent on error behavior, not-found cases, and authentication requirements.
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?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with verb, resource, and identifier, followed by a compact list of included fields. No filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the key returned attributes: stage, amount, close date, and contacts. It omits error behavior and a full field list, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description nearly complete.
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 100%: the single parameter dealId is described as 'HubSpot deal ID (from search_deals)'. The tool description only restates 'by ID', adding no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single HubSpot deal'), the key identifier ('by ID'), and the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from search_deals (search vs single fetch) and get_contact (deal vs contact).
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 implies use when you already have a deal ID and need detail, and the schema notes the ID comes from search_deals. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_deals or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.