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 only states the action ('List') without detailing what the tool returns (e.g., folder contents, metadata, or structure), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like permissions or rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool with an output schema.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the basic action and resource. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, which helps completeness. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a vague purpose, it lacks sufficient context for a tool with a required parameter. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'id'. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a folder ID, workspace ID, or other identifier) or its expected format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 'List canned response folder in Freshservice' states the verb ('List') and resource ('canned response folder'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'list' entails (e.g., listing contents vs. metadata) and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_all_canned_response_folder', which suggests a broader scope. This leaves ambiguity in the tool's specific function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'list_all_canned_response_folder' or explain why one would choose this tool over that one, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative information limits effective tool selection.

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