Create new call records in HubSpot CRM to log inbound or outbound calls, track call details like duration and status, and associate calls with contacts or companies.
Create a new call record
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| properties | Yes | ||
| associations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Create a new call record' without mentioning required permissions, whether this is a write operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a creation tool with complex nested parameters, this is critically insufficient.
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 four words. While this brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal communication, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if insufficient overall.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'call record' is, what data is required, how associations work, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves the agent unable to use the tool effectively.
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%, meaning none of the 2 parameters (with complex nested structures) are documented in the schema. The description provides zero information about parameters, not even mentioning the required 'properties' object or optional 'associations'. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 call record' states the basic action but is tautological with the tool name 'calls_create'. It doesn't specify what a 'call record' entails or differentiate from sibling tools like 'calls_batch_create' or other creation tools in the system. The purpose is clear at a surface level but lacks specificity about what's being created.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools including 'calls_batch_create', 'calls_update', and various CRM creation tools, the description offers no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or distinctions from related functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.