Freshservice MCP server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't cover whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), or output format, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it under-specifies critical details.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively despite the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'query', 'page', or 'workspace_id' mean, their formats, or how they affect filtering, failing to provide semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 'Filter the tickets in Freshservice' restates the tool name 'filter_tickets' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('tickets') and system ('Freshservice') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'filter' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tickets' or 'get_ticket_by_id', leaving the exact purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'get_tickets' and 'get_ticket_by_id', the absence of usage guidelines is misleading as it fails to help an agent choose appropriately.

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