Hookbase MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'This will also delete all associated routes,' which indicates a destructive, cascading effect beyond just the destination. This is valuable context for understanding the tool's impact, though it doesn't cover other aspects like permissions, error handling, or confirmation prompts.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follow with the key side effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation with cascading effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the main action and a critical side effect, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., authentication), error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a mutation tool with no structured support, it should do more to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'destination_id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format or constraints for 'destination_id'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 specific action ('Delete a destination') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hookbase_delete_route' or 'hookbase_delete_source' by specifying the resource type. It goes beyond the tool name by adding the consequence of deleting associated routes, which helps differentiate it from other delete operations in the sibling set.

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 usage when deleting a destination is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'hookbase_update_destination' for modifications or 'hookbase_list_destinations' for viewing). It mentions the side effect of deleting associated routes, which provides some context but not clear exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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