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 likely non-destructive and read-only, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. 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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral context and sibling differentiation, which are minor gaps in an otherwise straightforward tool 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 'ticket_id' documented only by title and type in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name's implication of an ID-based lookup. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't compensate, but the single parameter is straightforward, warranting a baseline score.

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 'Get a ticket in Freshservice' clearly states the action (get) and resource (ticket) with the platform context (Freshservice), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tickets' (plural) or 'filter_tickets', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific single-ticket retrieval tool versus list/filter alternatives.

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. With siblings like 'get_tickets' and 'filter_tickets' available, the description lacks explicit direction on preferring this tool for single-ticket lookup by ID versus bulk retrieval or filtered searches, offering no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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