freshdesk_list_agentsList/filter agents. Freshdesk REST: GET /agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination (1-based). | |
| No | Filter by email. | ||
| phone | No | Filter by phone number. | |
| state | No | Filter by state: fulltime or occasional. | |
| mobile | No | Filter by mobile number. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (1-100, max 100, default 30). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds only the REST endpoint reference, which provides no additional behavioral context about pagination, filtering semantics, or limitations. Beyond the annotation, it adds essentially no transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose immediately and includes no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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 fully documented schema and read-only annotation, the description is minimally sufficient for a list tool. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not describe the return shape, which leaves some ambiguity for a tool with no output schema. It is adequate but not complete.
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 input schema documents all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'List/filter agents' clearly identifies the action (list/filter) and resource (agents), and the REST endpoint reference adds precision. It distinguishes from sibling tools like freshdesk_get_agent by explicitly targeting the list operation.
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 implies use for listing or filtering agents, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as freshdesk_get_agent, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.