List HubSpot CRM companies with pagination, custom property selection, and configurable limits using a Private App access token.
List HubSpot CRM companies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response | |
| limit | No | Companies to return (max 100, default 25) | |
| properties | No | Comma-separated properties to return | |
| access_token | Yes | HubSpot Private App access token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of pagination behavior (even though the 'after' cursor exists), result ordering, or rate limits—so it fails to add value over structured fields.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally sound. It is arguably too terse to convey anything beyond the name, but it is not padded or disorganized.
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 paginated listing tool with no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing the return shape (e.g., that results come with a paging cursor), default ordering, and how this differs from search endpoints. None of that is present, leaving the definition thin despite complete parameter docs and helpful annotations.
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 100%, with all four parameters (after, limit, properties, access_token) documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating the resource, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List HubSpot CRM companies'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish this from related siblings such as hubspot_list_contacts, hubspot_search_contacts, or hubspot_get_contact, which a 5 would require.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (search vs. list, contacts vs. companies vs. deals), and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.