HubSpot MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a batch mutation tool.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 batch mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, response format, and differentiation from siblings. The context demands more completeness given the complexity and potential impact of batch updates.

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%, but the description adds minimal value by implying the 'inputs' parameter contains company data. However, it doesn't explain the structure (array of objects with id and properties), valid property fields, or constraints. With 1 parameter but poor schema documentation, this meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate.

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 ('update') and resource ('multiple companies'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_update_company (single update) or crm_batch_update_objects (generic batch update), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 available (e.g., crm_update_company for single updates, crm_batch_update_objects for generic batch updates), there's no indication of when batch updating companies is preferred or what prerequisites might exist.

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