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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a route' indicates a destructive mutation, but it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on associated events or deliveries), rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 at three words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a route') with zero wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context such as what 'delete' entails (permanent vs. soft delete), confirmation requirements, return values, or error cases. For a mutation tool in a set with many siblings, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 single parameter 'route_id' documented as 'The ID of the route to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without description enhancement.

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 'Delete a route' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a route'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling deletion tools (e.g., hookbase_delete_cron_job, hookbase_delete_destination), which all follow the same 'Delete a [resource]' pattern, leaving the specific type of route unclear without context.

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 an existing route), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion), or related tools like hookbase_update_route or hookbase_get_route, which could be relevant for checking before deletion. Usage is implied only by the tool name in context with siblings.

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