Archive multiple HubSpot call records simultaneously by specifying their IDs in a single batch request.
Archive (delete) multiple call records in a single request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| callIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool archives/deletes records, implying destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, confirmation prompts, rate limits, or response format. The parenthetical '(delete)' adds some clarity but not comprehensive 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No wasted words; every element ('archive', 'delete', 'multiple call records', 'single request') contributes essential information efficiently.
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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context like side effects, error handling, permissions, and what 'archive/delete' entails operationally, leaving significant gaps for safe agent invocation.
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%, with one parameter 'callIds' undocumented in schema. The description mentions 'multiple call records', which hints at the parameter's purpose but doesn't specify format, constraints, or example values. It adds marginal meaning beyond the bare 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 ('archive/delete') and resource ('multiple call records'), with 'in a single request' indicating batch operation. It distinguishes from 'calls_archive' by specifying multiple records, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like 'calls_batch_read' or 'calls_batch_update' beyond the verb.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_archive' (single record) or other batch operations. The description implies batch processing but doesn't specify thresholds, prerequisites, or error handling compared to individual calls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.