Search HubSpot CRM companies using specific filters to find and organize business records based on custom criteria.
Search companies with company-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. It mentions searching with filters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by 'after' parameter but not explained), rate limits, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a search tool with multiple parameters.
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 appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent 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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only vaguely mentions 'company-specific filters,' which doesn't explain the 5 parameters (filterGroups, after, limit, properties, sorts) or their semantics. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 states the tool searches companies with filters, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_search_contacts or crm_search_leads beyond mentioning 'company-specific filters,' which is somewhat vague about what makes them company-specific.
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 crm_list_objects or other search tools. The description mentions 'company-specific filters' but doesn't explain what this means or when it's preferable, leaving the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.