get_all_agentsList Freshservice agents with filters for email, agent type, active status, and pagination to locate support staff for assignment or review.
List agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1 | |
| No | Exact email | ||
| state | No | Agent type | |
| active | No | true: active only, false: deactivated only | |
| per_page | No | Records per page (max 100) |
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of default page size, max 100 per page, or result ordering — so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.
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?
Two words with zero waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated. An agent learns nothing it could not infer from the tool name alone.
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?
The output schema and full schema coverage relieve some burden, but for a five-parameter listing tool that competes with 'filter_agents', the description should at minimum say whether it returns all agents unfiltered and how pagination behaves. That routing information is entirely absent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so page, email, state, active and per_page are all documented in the schema, including the enum-like agent type and the max-100 page size. The description adds nothing on top, so the 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?
"List agents" merely restates the tool name and title with no additional specificity. It gives no hint of scope, filtering capability, or pagination, and it does nothing to distinguish the tool from sibling 'filter_agents' or 'get_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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative 'filter_agents', which also returns agents. With two agent-listing siblings present, the absence of routing guidance is a real ambiguity rather than a neutral omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.