add_requester_to_groupAdds a specified requester to a manual requester group in Freshservice by linking requester ID and group ID, so requesters can be organized under the correct group.
Add a requester to a manual requester group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requester_id | Yes | Requester ID | |
| requester_group_id | Yes | Requester group ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, covering safety and repeat-call behavior. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — the target must be a *manual* group — but says nothing about what happens on duplicate membership or against a dynamic group.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is not padded, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a membership mutation the description omits error conditions (dynamic group, unknown requester) that an agent would want before calling.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented (albeit thinly: 'Requester ID', 'Requester group ID'). The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (requester to a requester group), and the qualifier 'manual' narrows scope meaningfully. It implicitly contrasts with remove_requester_from_group, but never names siblings or clarifies how it relates to dynamic groups.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of the sibling remove_requester_from_group or list_requester_group_members as the counterpart operations. The agent must infer invocation conditions entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.