get_requesterRetrieve a Freshservice requester by ID to look up contact and profile details for ticket and support workflows.
Get a requester by ID.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them — no error behavior for an unknown ID, no access/permission context, nothing about what an openWorld lookup implies. With the bar lowered by annotations, a 2 reflects a description that contributes no additional behavioral context at all.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is concise to a fault — the size is appropriate but the space saved isn't spent on any routing or behavioral detail.
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 needn't be explained, and the single required parameter is fully documented, making the definition minimally sufficient. However, in a namespace with near-duplicate requester retrieval tools, the description omits the discrimination an agent needs to select correctly.
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?
Single integer parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it and the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the ID is the lookup key and adds no format, source, or scope detail beyond the schema.
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 a requester') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which distinguishes a single-record fetch from the sibling list tools get_all_requesters and filter_requesters. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_all_requesters, filter_requesters, or get_agent. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.