Freshservice MCP server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, rate limits, or error conditions. 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 wasted content.

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 complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior, parameter interactions, or what 'details' encompass. The output schema helps with return values, but the description should provide more context about the operation itself to be fully adequate.

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 description mentions 'details' but doesn't specify which parameters can be updated or their meanings. With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (id, name, description, visibility), the schema provides only titles without explanations. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap, but doesn't contradict it.

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 ('Update') and target resource ('an existing solution folder's details in Freshservice'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_solution_article or update_solution_category, which would require mentioning what distinguishes solution folder updates from other updates.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools like update_solution_category. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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