HubSpot MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it's safe or has side effects. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the lead ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Get a single lead by ID') and adds necessary detail ('with specific properties and associations'). There's no wasted words or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or how properties/associations are specified. For a tool that retrieves data with filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively, especially without annotations or output schema to fill in the gaps.

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?

The description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations', which hints at the 'leadId', 'properties', and 'associations' parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptions for these parameters. The description adds some semantic value by indicating what the parameters control, but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap—it doesn't explain format (e.g., string for leadId), optionality, or enum values for associations.

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 'Get' and resource 'a single lead by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. It also mentions 'with specific properties and associations' which adds detail about what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_get_lead_properties' or 'crm_get_associations', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'crm_search_leads' for finding leads, 'crm_batch_read_objects' for multiple leads, or 'crm_get_lead_properties' for just properties. Without any context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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