FS_MCP_thin

Search Tickets

search_tickets

Search Freshservice tickets with filter queries (e.g., status:2 for open, priority:4 for urgent) to locate specific support tickets for triage and analysis.

Instructions

Search Freshservice tickets using filter query syntax. Examples: "status:2" for open, "priority:4" for urgent, "status:2 AND priority:4" for open+urgent.

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_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number (default 1)
`query`	Yes	Filter query (e.g. "status:2 AND priority:1")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, side effects, or read-only nature. The examples only illustrate query syntax, not operational behavior.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the tool's function, the second provides actionable examples. No redundant words or filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to begin using the query syntax but omits return structure, pagination behavior, and which ticket fields are searchable. Minimal for an unfamiliar agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

While schema descriptions cover both parameters, the description adds meaningful examples mapping common queries to states (open, urgent) and demonstrates boolean combinations, going beyond the schema's generic placeholder example.

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 it searches Freshservice tickets using filter query syntax. Concrete examples ('status:2' for open, 'priority:4' for urgent) distinguish it from single-ticket retrieval (get_ticket) and pre-filtered lists like list_open_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 usage for filtered searches and provides query syntax examples, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_ticket or list_open_tickets. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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