HubSpot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validated properties' which hints at input validation, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Create'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a company ID). This is inadequate for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral expectations, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a creation tool in a CRM context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only vaguely mentions 'validated properties', which partially relates to the 'properties' parameter but doesn't explain its structure or the 'associations' parameter at all. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new company'), making the purpose evident. It adds 'with validated properties' which hints at input validation, but doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other company-related tools like crm_update_company or crm_batch_create_companies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_batch_create_companies or crm_create_object. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or when to choose this over batch operations, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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