Retrieve all engagements linked to a specific HubSpot CRM object like contacts, companies, deals, or tickets to track interactions and activities.
Get all engagements associated with an object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectType | Yes | ||
| objectId | Yes | ||
| startTime | No | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| activityTypes | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | 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 the full burden. It mentions 'Get all engagements,' implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (despite limit/offset parameters), or response format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
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, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in 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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits like pagination or permissions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective tool use.
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 and 7 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'objectId' or 'objectType' refer to, the purpose of 'activityTypes', or the format of 'startTime'/'endTime'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('engagements associated with an object'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list', which appear to handle engagements differently, so it misses full 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'engagement_details_get' or 'engagement_details_list', nor does it mention prerequisites like required object types. It's a basic statement without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.