get_requester_groupFetch a Freshservice requester group by ID to identify group details for ticket routing and requester management.
Get a requester group by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requester_group_id | Yes | Requester group 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations – no notes on not-found handling, whether members are included, or sensitivity of the data. With annotations carrying the load, this is minimally adequate.
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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than deliberately concise.
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 and annotations are rich, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, for a lookup tool surrounded by group-management siblings, it leaves ambiguity about whether membership or only group metadata is returned, and it offers no routing to related tools.
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% and the single parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions 'by ID' but adds no format, type, or validation 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 a requester group') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling get_all_requester_groups. It does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify what a 'requester group' returns, but the purpose is immediately clear.
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 'by ID' phrasing implies this is the single-record lookup versus get_all_requester_groups, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites are given. There is no mention of alternatives such as list_requester_group_members when the caller actually needs membership data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.