HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'archive (delete)' which implies destructive action, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's a soft/hard delete, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 just three words, front-loading the essential action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a destructive operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after archiving, what errors might occur, or provide any context about the CRM system's archiving behavior. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'a CRM object' but doesn't explain what objectType or objectId represent, what values are valid for objectType, or how objectId should be formatted. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('archive/delete') and resource ('a CRM object'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_archive_objects' or 'crm_archive_association', but the singular vs. plural naming provides some implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch operations or other deletion methods. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for archiving individual objects versus batch operations.

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