Update multiple HubSpot CRM leads simultaneously by modifying contact details, status, company information, and other properties in a single batch operation.
Update multiple leads in a single request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a batch mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps.
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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward batch update operation and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 batch mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral expectations, parameter usage, error conditions, or return values. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant trial-and-error or external documentation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters are completely undocumented in the structured schema. The description mentions 'multiple leads' but doesn't explain the 'inputs' parameter structure, required fields, or how to format the update data. It adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name.
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 clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('multiple leads'), making the purpose evident. It specifies 'in a single request' which adds useful context about batch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_update_lead' or 'crm_batch_update_contacts', which would require a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like single-lead updates or batch updates for other CRM objects. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for batch operations versus individual updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.