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. It discloses the action is destructive (moving to recycling bin implies deletion or archiving), but lacks details on permissions required, reversibility, side effects, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity and sibling tools, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'ID' as the identifier, which aligns with the 'productId' parameter, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or where to find the ID. With one undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Move') and target ('Object identified by ID'), specifying it goes 'to the recycling bin.' It distinguishes from siblings like products_batch_archive by focusing on single-object archiving, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about the object type (e.g., 'product').

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 products_batch_archive or other archive tools (e.g., crm_archive_object). The description implies it's for archiving a single product, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among similar tools.

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