HubSpot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('archive (delete)') which is critical, but lacks other behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the response looks like. For a destructive batch 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('archive (delete)') and key qualification ('multiple tasks in a single request'). Every word earns its place with zero 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 batch operation with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical context: parameter details, behavioral implications (permanence, permissions), error handling, and response format. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 'multiple tasks' which implies the 'taskIds' parameter, but provides no semantic details: no format requirements for task IDs, no constraints on array size, no examples, and no explanation of what constitutes valid task IDs. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the parameter name.

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 ('multiple tasks'), and specifies the scope ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from the singular 'tasks_archive' sibling by indicating batch operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch archive tools like 'calls_batch_archive' or 'notes_batch_archive' beyond the resource type.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when to use batch vs individual archive ('tasks_archive'), or any limitations (e.g., maximum number of tasks per batch). It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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