Retrieve a HubSpot form by its ID, with an option to include the full field groups tree or just the summary.
Fetch one form.
Args: form_id: HubSpot form ID (a UUID). include_fields: True (default) returns the full fieldGroups tree. Set False for just the summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_id | Yes | ||
| include_fields | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what include_fields does (returns fieldGroups tree vs summary), but it contradicts the schema by claiming 'True (default)' while the schema sets default to false. It also omits any mention of error handling, permissions, or side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a read operation.
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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by concise parameter explanations. It is well-structured as a docstring, though the default value inaccuracy slightly detracts from clarity. Overall, it is appropriately sized with no wasted 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?
Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the tool's correct usage is compromised by the include_fields default mismatch. The description also does not cover potential errors, prerequisites, or the meaning of 'summary' vs 'fieldGroups tree' in sufficient depth. For a simple fetch tool, it is incomplete due to the inconsistency.
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 adds meaning by specifying form_id as a UUID and explaining include_fields' effect on output. However, the default for include_fields is stated incorrectly (True vs schema's false), which is misleading. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but this error undermines its usefulness.
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 'Fetch one form', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_forms, which lists multiple forms, and other get_* tools for different entities. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 implies this tool is for retrieving a single form by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_forms, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied by the name and purpose rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.