HubSpot MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination behavior (cursor-based), response structure hint (paging.next.after), and that it's a read operation. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns all products or has other constraints. The description adds meaningful context but leaves 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does. The second explains parameter usage and response behavior. No wasted words, though the second sentence is somewhat dense. Structure is logical but could be slightly more readable.

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 read/list tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics (purpose, pagination, property selection) but lacks details about authentication, error handling, rate limits, and complete parameter documentation. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps given the context complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'properties' ('control what is returned') and 'after' (paging cursor, relates to response structure). It doesn't mention 'limit' parameter at all. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, explaining two of three parameters' purposes, though one parameter remains undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'Read a page of products' specifies the verb (read) and resource (products). It distinguishes from sibling tools like products_read (singular) and products_search (filtered search), but doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The description is specific about pagination but could be more explicit about differentiation.

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 implies usage context through pagination and property selection features, suggesting this is for browsing products with control over returned fields. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like products_search (for filtering) or products_read (for single product). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.