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 states the tool archives/deletes products, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens on partial failure. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive batch operation.

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 that immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, 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 batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally, whether it's soft/hard delete, what confirmation is needed, error handling, or return values. The context signals show this is a mutation tool requiring more behavioral disclosure.

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 'by ID' which clarifies the 'productIds' parameter's purpose, but doesn't specify ID format, maximum batch size, or validation rules. This provides basic context but leaves important details undocumented.

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 ('Archive (delete)') and resource ('a batch of products by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'products_archive' (which likely archives single products), missing full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'products_archive' (for single products) or 'products_batch_update' (for modifying instead of archiving). It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or recommended contexts for batch archiving.

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