HubSpot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a mutation (implied by 'create'), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with 11 parameters, this is critically inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just 4 words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful information beyond the tool name. A truly concise description would still provide essential context in minimal words.

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 complex creation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what's being created, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect in return. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters (5 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention what 'name', 'label', 'type', 'fieldType', or 'groupName' mean, nor does it explain the purpose of optional parameters like 'options', 'description', or 'hasUniqueValue'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Create a new lead property' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'crm_create_lead_property' without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what a 'lead property' is in this CRM context or what the creation entails, making it only slightly better than just the name alone.

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 sibling tools like 'crm_create_lead', 'crm_create_company_property', and 'crm_get_lead_properties', there's no indication of when to create a lead property versus using other related tools or what prerequisites might be needed.

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