Search HubSpot meetings using filters to find specific engagements based on criteria like date, participants, or properties.
Search meetings 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. It mentions 'search' and 'filters' but doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., pagination, result format), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 with a single sentence: 'Search meetings with specific filters.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, which is reflected in lower scores for other dimensions.
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 doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the filters effectively, or any behavioral aspects. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
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 only vaguely references 'specific filters,' which doesn't explain parameters like 'after,' 'filterGroups,' 'limit,' 'properties,' or 'sorts.' It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
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 meetings with specific filters' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('meetings'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what constitutes 'specific filters' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'meetings_list' or 'meetings_get' in any meaningful way. It's adequate 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'meetings_list' and 'meetings_get' available, there's no indication of when filtering is needed versus simpler listing or retrieval. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.