Retrieve and filter HubSpot engagements by date range, activity type, or pagination to manage CRM interactions.
List all engagements with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| startTime | No | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| activityTypes | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all engagements' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this is safe, paginated, or has rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lacks critical context about performance, permissions, or side effects.
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 just one sentence: 'List all engagements with optional filtering'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the core functionality.
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 tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'engagements' are, how filtering works, what the response contains, or how this differs from other list tools. The minimal description leaves too many open questions 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining what parameters are available or their purposes. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters like 'activityTypes', 'startTime', and 'limit' 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 'List all engagements with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('engagements'), but it's vague about what 'engagements' specifically refers to compared to sibling tools like 'calls_list' or 'meetings_list'. It doesn't distinguish itself from other list tools in the server, leaving ambiguity about the scope of 'engagements'.
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 many sibling tools like 'engagement_details_get', 'engagement_details_get_associated', 'calls_list', and 'meetings_list', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The mention of 'optional filtering' is generic and doesn't help with tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.