Modify existing meeting details in HubSpot CRM by updating title, description, location, time, outcome, or owner to keep records current.
Update an existing meeting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meetingId | Yes | ||
| properties | 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing meeting' implies a mutation operation but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing meeting'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a purpose, adhering to principles of conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to effectively select and invoke this tool.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (meetingId and properties with nested fields like hs_meeting_title) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what meetingId is, what properties can be updated, or the meaning of fields like hs_meeting_outcome. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 'Update an existing meeting' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing meeting'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'meetings_batch_update' or other update tools in the server, which would require more specificity about scope or method.
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 'meetings_batch_update' or 'meetings_create'. It mentions 'existing meeting', implying a prerequisite of an existing meeting ID, but offers no explicit usage context, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.