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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' a folder, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or what the output includes (e.g., folder properties or nested articles). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 core action ('Get solution folder') and adds necessary context ('by its ID in Freshservice'). There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate as a starting point. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, and behavioral traits. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in providing a full operational context.

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' of type integer. The description adds that it's a 'solution folder' ID in 'Freshservice,' providing domain context. However, it doesn't specify ID format (e.g., positive integer), source (e.g., from list operations), or validation rules. With low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully, meeting the baseline for minimal parameter insight.

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 folder'), specifying it's retrieved 'by its ID in Freshservice.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_list_of_solution_folder' (which lists folders) and 'create_solution_folder' (which creates one). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieving metadata vs. full content), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 folder ID), contrast with 'get_list_of_solution_folder' for listing all folders, or specify use cases (e.g., for editing or viewing details). The description assumes the user knows when to fetch a single folder, offering minimal context.

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