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 'pagination support', which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if parameters are omitted. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 purpose ('Get tickets from Freshservice') and adds a key feature ('with pagination support'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 2 parameters, the description is minimal—it covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings. It's adequate but has clear 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pagination support', which hints at the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters, but doesn't explain their semantics, default values, or valid ranges. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 tickets') and the source ('from Freshservice'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'filter_tickets' or 'get_ticket_by_id', which would be needed for 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?

The description mentions 'with pagination support', which implies usage for retrieving multiple tickets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'filter_tickets' or 'get_ticket_by_id'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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