Create multiple notes at once in HubSpot CRM by submitting a batch request, saving time when adding notes to contacts, companies, or deals.
Create multiple notes in a single request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is atomic. For a batch creation tool, this is a significant gap, as agents need to understand risks like partial failures or system constraints.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the batch nature of the operation, making it easy to scan and understand 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?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving critical gaps for a tool that performs batch creation operations.
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%, and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain the 'inputs' array structure, required fields like 'hs_note_body', or how to format associations. With 1 parameter (a complex nested array) undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 ('create multiple notes') and scope ('in a single request'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the singular 'notes_create' sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like 'notes_batch_update' or 'notes_batch_archive', which would require more precise language about the creation aspect.
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 'notes_create' for single notes or other batch operations. The description merely states what it does without context about efficiency, prerequisites, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.