HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'archive (delete)', implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated data). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. The simplicity of the parameter schema doesn't offset these gaps.

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 doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (a single 'meetingId' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is low, but since there's only one parameter and its purpose is implied by the tool name, the description doesn't compensate meaningfully. A score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy given the simple parameter structure.

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 meeting'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'meetings_batch_archive' or 'calls_archive', which would require specifying this is for single meetings only.

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 'meetings_batch_archive' for multiple meetings or 'meetings_update' for modifications. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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