Retrieve HubSpot CRM contacts newest first, with pagination, selected properties, and contact limits for CRM lookups and sync workflows.
List HubSpot CRM contacts (most recently created first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response | |
| limit | No | Contacts 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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact not in annotations — results are returned newest-first — but says nothing about pagination flow, rate limits, or the token's permission requirements despite having an 'after' cursor.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (recency ordering) is placed immediately after the resource. Appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, an output-free contract and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining shortfall is disambiguation from hubspot_search_contacts, which sits in the same CRM namespace and could easily be chosen instead.
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%, so 'after', 'limit', 'properties' and 'access_token' are each documented in the schema, including the max/default for limit. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline-3 case when the schema does the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List HubSpot CRM contacts') plus an ordering trait ('most recently created first'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling hubspot_search_contacts or hubspot_get_contact, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the ordering note hints that this is a browse-recent flow rather than a targeted lookup, but the description never says when to prefer it over hubspot_search_contacts (filtered search) or hubspot_get_contact (single record). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.