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. 'Publish' implies a write operation that likely changes the article's state (e.g., from draft to published), but the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, 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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context like parameter meaning, usage guidelines, and behavioral details needed for a mutation operation. The presence of an output schema prevents a lower score, but gaps remain.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'article_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what this ID represents, where to obtain it, or how it relates to other tools (e.g., from 'create_solution_article'). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('a solution article in Freshservice'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_solution_article' or 'update_solution_article', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes publishing from creating or updating.

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. With siblings like 'create_solution_article' and 'update_solution_article', it's unclear whether publishing is a separate action from creation/updating, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., does an article need to be created first?). No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternatives are mentioned.

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