Search HubSpot CRM calls using filters to find specific call records based on properties, dates, or other criteria.
Search calls with specific filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterGroups | Yes | ||
| properties | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| after | No | ||
| sorts | 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Search calls with specific filters'—it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output looks like, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with complex parameters, this is a critical gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects in schema, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, output format, or how it differs from siblings. For a search tool with rich filtering capabilities, this leaves the agent unable to use it 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 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain what parameters are available (e.g., filterGroups, sorts, limit), their purposes, or how to use them. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings and usage.
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 'Search calls with specific filters' states the basic verb+resource but is vague about what 'specific filters' means. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like calls_list, calls_get, or other search tools (emails_search, meetings_search), leaving the agent unclear about when to choose this over alternatives. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calls_list or calls_get. The description mentions 'specific filters' but doesn't explain what scenarios require this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be more appropriate. This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.