mcpship-hubspot

create_note

Write a plain-text note into HubSpot and optionally attach it to a specific deal. Use it to log deal context and call updates; writes require the write flag to be enabled.

Instructions

Write a note into HubSpot, optionally attached to a specific deal. Disabled unless HUBSPOT_ALLOW_WRITE=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The note content, in plain text.
`deal_id`	No	HubSpot deal ID to attach the note to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden; it earns credit for disclosing that the tool is write-gated by an environment flag, which an agent otherwise could not know. It stops short of stating what happens on failure (invalid deal_id, write disabled), whether the note is returned with an ID, or any rate/size constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the operational constraint second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the optional association, and the write gate, which is most of what an agent needs. The only meaningful gap is post-call behavior on error or rejection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'body' and 'deal_id' fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added semantic content is that the deal attachment is optional, which is already implied by 'required: [body]'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('a note into HubSpot') plus the optional deal association, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It implicitly contrasts with the read-only siblings (search_contacts, search_deals, recent_notes) by being the only creator, but never names an alternative to disambiguate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description supplies a hard gating condition ('Disabled unless HUBSPOT_ALLOW_WRITE=true'), which is genuine when-to-use information. However, it gives no guidance on choosing this over recent_notes or other tools, and no exclusions for when creating a note is inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server