Search HubSpot CRM objects like contacts, companies, and deals using filters to find specific records based on property values and conditions.
Search CRM objects using filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectType | Yes | ||
| filterGroups | Yes | ||
| properties | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| after | No | ||
| sorts | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Search' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format results come in. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral information gap.
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 at just 5 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured.
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 complex search tool with 6 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'CRM objects' encompasses, how search results are returned, or provide any context about the filtering system that the schema details.
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 description must compensate. 'using filters' only hints at the filterGroups parameter, ignoring the other 5 parameters (objectType, properties, sorts, limit, after). The description adds minimal value beyond what the parameter names themselves suggest, failing to explain what CRM objects are searchable or how filters work.
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 CRM objects using filters' states the verb ('Search') and resource ('CRM objects'), but is vague about scope and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, or crm_search_leads, which appear to be more specific versions of similar functionality.
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. With multiple sibling search tools (crm_search_companies, crm_search_contacts, crm_search_leads) and a general crm_list_objects tool, the description offers no context about when this general search is preferred over more specific searches or listing operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.