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 states 'Get ticket fields' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or what the output includes (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get ticket fields'), and the additional context ('from Freshservice') is minimal and relevant. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations, it lacks context about behavioral aspects like safety, rate limits, or permissions. The output schema will handle return values, but the description could better clarify the scope of 'ticket fields' (e.g., all fields, editable fields).

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool with full schema coverage.

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 ticket fields from Freshservice' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('ticket fields'), with 'from Freshservice' providing context about the system. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ticket_by_id' or 'get_tickets' by focusing on fields rather than tickets themselves. However, it doesn't specify what 'fields' encompass (e.g., custom fields, system fields), leaving some ambiguity.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this retrieves all ticket fields globally, fields for a specific ticket type, or fields available for ticket creation/editing. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions or workspace context.

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