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. It mentions retrieving a list by ID, which is somewhat behavioral, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'list' entails (e.g., pagination, format). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that gets to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with clarity about the tool's purpose.

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 an output schema (which likely describes return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and a vague purpose, it's incomplete for guiding an agent on usage. The description covers basic intent but lacks context about behavior, parameters, and sibling differentiation, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description adds that the ID parameter is for 'solution folder', which the schema doesn't specify (schema coverage is 0%). However, it doesn't explain what the ID represents (e.g., numeric identifier, where to find it) or provide examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description offers minimal but not comprehensive semantic 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 the action ('Get list') and resource ('solution folder'), but it's vague about what 'list' means - it could imply retrieving multiple folders or details of one folder. The name 'get_list_of_solution_folder' suggests listing, but the description adds 'by its ID' which contradicts listing multiple items. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling 'get_solution_folder' which likely retrieves a single 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_solution_folder' or 'get_all_solution_category'. The description only states what it does without context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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