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 states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent. However, without annotations and with minimal parameter detail, it could benefit from more behavioral context, though the output schema mitigates some 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'id' (type integer) undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'by its ID', implying it's a unique identifier, but doesn't clarify format (e.g., numeric ID from Freshservice) or constraints. With low coverage, it partially compensates but lacks detail needed for full understanding.

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 ('Get') and resource ('solution category'), specifying it retrieves by ID in Freshservice. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_all_solution_category' (list all) and 'update_solution_category' (modify), though not explicitly mentioned. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'solution category' entails (e.g., a helpdesk taxonomy item).

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 (e.g., needing a valid ID), contrast with 'get_all_solution_category' for listing all categories, or specify use cases like retrieving details for editing or reference. The description assumes context without explicit direction.

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