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 states the tool archives/deletes a note, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated data, or what the response looks like. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds some clarity but is insufficient 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 and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral implications, error conditions, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it 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?

The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but with only one parameter (noteId) and 0% schema description coverage, it implicitly suggests the tool acts on a specific note. Since there are zero parameters described in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description at least implies the need for a note identifier without adding unnecessary detail.

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 'Archive (delete) a note' clearly states the action (archive/delete) and resource (note), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes_batch_archive' or 'notes_update', nor does it explain what 'archive' means specifically in this context versus deletion.

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 note), compare to batch operations like 'notes_batch_archive', or indicate when archiving is appropriate versus updating or deleting through other means.

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