mcp-freshservice

Create agent group

create_group

Create an agent group in Freshservice to organize support teams, define members and observers, and configure ticket escalation and auto-assignment rules.

Instructions

Create an agent group.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Group name
`members`	No	Alias of agent_ids on some accounts
`agent_ids`	No	Member agent IDs
`group_type`	No	e.g. 'support_agent_group' or 'oncall_agents'
`description`	No	Description
`escalate_to`	No	Agent ID to escalate unassigned tickets to
`observer_ids`	No	Observer agent IDs
`unassigned_for`	No	Escalate after this idle time
`business_hours_id`	No	Business hours ID
`auto_ticket_assign`	No	Automatically assign new tickets

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing about side effects (e.g. how members/observers are attached, what happens on duplicate names, whether escalation settings require business hours) and does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare verb and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter creation tool with openWorldHint=true and a rich set of grouping/escalation options, a one-line description is far too thin. It leaves the agent to infer intent, member provisioning, and aliasing behavior entirely from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with 10 well-annotated parameters, so the schema carries parameter meaning entirely. The description adds no clarification, for example about the ambiguity between 'members' and 'agent_ids' being aliases, which is exactly the kind of thing a description could have resolved.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a verbatim restatement of the tool title 'Create agent group' and adds no scope detail. It does not distinguish this from the closely-named sibling create_requester_group, so an agent scanning names alone has no basis to pick correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the create_requester_group alternative, and no prerequisites such as whether agents referenced by agent_ids must already exist. The single sentence offers nothing beyond the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server