FS_MCP_thin

Search Requesters

search_requesters

Identify service desk requesters by querying name or email, enabling ticket triage and support history lookup.

Instructions

Find requesters by name or email

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_requesters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Name or email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Find requesters by name or email,' implying a read-only search but not disclosing key behaviors like whether it returns partial matches, case sensitivity, pagination, or the result format. The lack of any safety or return-value context is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and scope, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a list of matching requesters). Since there is no output schema, this missing return-value information leaves the description incomplete for an agent that needs to know how to handle the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'query' is already described as 'Name or email'. The description adds no new semantic information, but it does reiterate the search criteria, keeping consistency. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Find'), the resource ('requesters'), and the search criteria ('by name or email'). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_agents and search_tickets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for locating requesters by name or email, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over related tools like get_requester (which likely retrieves by ID) or search_agents. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.