list_softwareFetch your Freshservice software inventory page by page to audit installed applications and support IT asset management.
List software inventory
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_software"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. However, it only states 'List software inventory' and does not describe pagination (despite the 'page' parameter), return format, or any potential side effects. The description adds little beyond what the tool's name already implies.
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, concise sentence with no filler words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could arguably include a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but omits important context about pagination behavior and the exact contents of the inventory list. The 'page' parameter hints at pagination, but the description does not explicitly explain it, leaving the guidance incomplete.
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?
The input schema has one optional parameter 'page' with a description 'Page number', providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'software inventory', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools since no other sibling explicitly targets software inventory. However, the description is minimal and does not elaborate on the scope or contents of the inventory, preventing a perfect score.
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 alternatives. The description simply states 'List software inventory' without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as list_assets that might overlap. This leaves the agent without sufficient context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.