list_solution_subfoldersLists subfolders within a Freshservice solution folder by folder ID, with pagination controls for navigating results.
List the sub-folders of a folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1 | |
| per_page | No | Records per page (max 100) | |
| folder_id | Yes | Solution folder 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 that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world listing operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior or what happens if the folder has no sub-folders.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its extreme brevity is appropriate in form, though it leaves substantive gaps in content.
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 not be explained. Still, the description is minimal for a tool whose folder_id could refer to different levels of the solution folder hierarchy, and it gives no caution about pagination or empty results beyond what the schema implies.
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 all three parameters (page, per_page, folder_id) are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema quality but leaves no additional value.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('sub-folders of a folder'), so the basic operation is understandable. However, it largely restates the tool name and title and does not distinguish this from related siblings such as get_list_of_solution_folder or get_solution_folder.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its many solution-folder siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, whether the parent folder must exist, or any alternative for traversing the folder hierarchy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.