Retrieve HubSpot product details by ID to access properties and associations for CRM data management.
Read an Object identified by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | ||
| properties | No | ||
| associations | 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 states 'Read,' which implies a safe, non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.
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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded but lacks depth, as it doesn't provide necessary details for effective tool use.
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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, parameter usage, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
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 mentions 'ID' (hinting at 'productId'), but doesn't explain the 'associations' or 'properties' parameters at all. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 'Read an Object identified by ID' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'products_read' (read + products) without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of object (e.g., product record) or what data is retrieved, making it vague. However, it's not entirely misleading, just insufficient.
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 'products_list' or 'products_batch_read' from the sibling tools. The description implies a single-object lookup by ID, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.