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 'Get all associations' but fails to specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'after' and 'limit' parameters but not explained), or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity (5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that retrieves data with multiple inputs, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective agent use.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'associations of a specific type between objects,' which hints at 'fromObjectType' and 'toObjectType' but doesn't explain the enum values, required 'fromObjectId,' optional 'after' for pagination, or 'limit' constraints. This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to adequately cover the 5 parameters.

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 ('Get all associations') and resource ('of a specific type between objects'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_list_association_types' or 'crm_get_object' that might handle related but different operations, nor does it mention the CRM context explicitly.

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 like 'crm_list_association_types' or 'crm_search_objects' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing specific object types) or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without comparative usage advice.

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