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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameter context, but its brevity is appropriate for a simple-sounding tool.

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 (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or return values, leaving critical gaps for the agent. For a tool that might filter or customize property retrieval, more context is needed to use it 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters ('archived' and 'properties') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning they're undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'archived' filters, what 'properties' array contains, or how they affect the output. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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') and target resource ('all properties for leads'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crm_get_lead' (which gets lead data) and 'crm_create_lead_property' (which creates properties). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'properties' refers to (e.g., custom fields, attributes), leaving some ambiguity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing lead IDs), differentiate from similar tools like 'crm_get_company_properties' or 'crm_get_contact_properties', or specify use cases (e.g., retrieving metadata for filtering). This leaves the agent to 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.