Archive multiple CRM objects in HubSpot simultaneously to clean up data and manage records efficiently. Specify object type and IDs to process batch deletions.
Archive (delete) multiple CRM objects in a single request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objectType | Yes | ||
| objectIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Archive (delete)' indicating destructive action, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or response format. 'Archive' vs 'delete' terminology is ambiguous without clarification.
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 with zero waste - every word contributes meaning. Front-loaded with core action ('Archive (delete) multiple CRM objects'), followed by operational context ('in a single request'). No redundant phrasing.
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 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like safety implications, parameter usage, or what to expect upon execution. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
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 description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' enum values represent, format of 'objectIds', or constraints like maximum batch size. The schema provides structure but description offers no semantic context.
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) multiple CRM objects') and resource ('CRM objects'), with 'in a single request' indicating batch capability. It distinguishes from single-object operations like 'crm_archive_object' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch tools like 'crm_batch_archive_associations'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_archive_object' (single object) or 'crm_batch_archive_associations' (different resource type). The description implies batch usage but lacks explicit comparison or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.