deactivate_requesterDeactivate a Freshservice requester by ID to revoke access; reverse it later by reactivating the requester.
Deactivate a requester (reversible with reactivate_requester).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requester_id | Yes | Requester 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely given. The description adds the genuinely useful nuance that the action is reversible via reactivate_requester, which counterbalances the alarming destructive flag. It stops short of describing side effects (e.g. effect on assigned tickets), so not a 5.
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 short sentence with zero filler, leading with the action and immediately qualifying reversibility. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the one-parameter surface is simple. The description covers effect and reversibility, but omits what deactivation does to related entities (open tickets, group memberships) — a minor gap given the destructive/openWorld hints.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no information about the requester_id beyond what the schema provides; 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 ('Deactivate') and resource ('a requester'), which cleanly separates it from sibling deactivate_agent and from reactivate_requester. An agent can identify the operation and its target without opening the schema.
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 parenthetical names reactivate_requester as the undo path, which gives an agent a recovery route, but there is no explicit guidance on when to deactivate versus update_requester or other requester-mutating siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.