get_agentRetrieve a Freshservice agent by ID, including roles and group memberships, to verify identity and access details.
Get an agent by ID, including roles and group memberships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes roles and group memberships, which is useful scope information, but says nothing about behavior when the ID does not exist or does not resolve.
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?
One compact sentence with the verb and key front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too thin rather than padded, which is the better failure mode for a simple lookup tool.
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?
With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly notes the payload includes roles and group memberships. It still leaves the agent unable to tell this apart from get_agent_fields or to know the failure behavior for an unknown ID.
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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, range, or lookup-mechanics detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 and resource ('Get an agent') and adds the retrieval key ('by ID'), which separates it from the list/filter siblings like get_all_agents and filter_agents. It does not distinguish itself from get_agent_fields, which also reads a single agent.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies this is the single-record lookup rather than a browse operation, so usage is inferable. However, no alternatives are named and no condition is stated for choosing this over get_all_agents, filter_agents, or get_agent_fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.