Freshservice MCP server

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 mentions the condition ('if the ticket is a service request') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (what happens if the ticket isn't a service request), permissions required, rate limits, or what 'requested items' entails (e.g., format, scope). 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Fetch requested items') and includes the essential condition. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, permissions, and behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely interacts with a ticketing system and has conditional logic, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds meaning by linking 'ticket_id' to fetching requested items for a service request, which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it doesn't detail the parameter's format, constraints, or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('requested items'), and specifies the condition ('if the ticket is a service request'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ticket_by_id' or 'list_service_items' by focusing on requested items rather than general ticket data or service items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings in the list.

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?

The description implies usage context by stating 'if the ticket is a service request', which provides some guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., what to use for non-service-request tickets). No explicit prerequisites or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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