Skip to main content
Glama
forterro

freshservice-mcp

by forterro

manage_change

Create, update, close, list, and move change requests in Freshservice, with options to filter, sort, and retrieve change fields.

Instructions

Unified change operations.

    Args:
        action: One of 'create', 'update', 'delete', 'get', 'list', 'filter',
                'close', 'move', 'get_fields'
        change_id: Required for get, update, delete, close, move
        requester_id: Initiator ID (create — MANDATORY)
        subject: Change subject (create — MANDATORY)
        description: HTML description (create — MANDATORY)
        priority: 1=Low, 2=Medium, 3=High, 4=Urgent
        impact: 1=Low, 2=Medium, 3=High
        status: 1=Open, 2=Planning, 3=Awaiting Approval, 4=Pending Release,
                5=Pending Review, 6=Closed
        risk: 1=Low, 2=Medium, 3=High, 4=Very High
        change_type: 1=Minor, 2=Standard, 3=Major, 4=Emergency
        group_id: Agent group ID
        agent_id: Agent ID
        department_id: Department ID
        category: Category string
        sub_category: Sub-category string
        item_category: Item category string
        planned_start_date: ISO datetime
        planned_end_date: ISO datetime
        reason_for_change: Planning field — reason (text/HTML)
        change_impact: Planning field — impact analysis (text/HTML)
        rollout_plan: Planning field — rollout plan (text/HTML)
        backout_plan: Planning field — backout plan (text/HTML)
        custom_fields: Custom fields dict
        assets: Assets list (associated CIs), e.g. [{"display_id": 1}]
        impacted_services: Impacted services list, e.g. [{"display_id": 167456}]
            NOTE: This is different from 'assets'. Assets = associated CIs,
            impacted_services = business services affected by the change.
        maintenance_window_id: Maintenance Window ID to associate with
            this Change. On create, applied via follow-up PUT. On update,
            sent as {"maintenance_window": {"id": <value>}}.
            Use this to link a Change to an existing Maintenance Window.
        change_result_explanation: Result explanation (close)
        workspace_id: Target workspace (move / list / filter)
        query: Filter query string (list/filter)
        view: View name or ID (list)
        sort: Sort field (list)
        order_by: 'asc' or 'desc' (list)
        updated_since: ISO datetime (list)
        page: Page number
        per_page: Items per page 1-100
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
riskNo
sortNo
viewNo
queryNo
actionYes
assetsNo
impactNo
statusNo
subjectNo
agent_idNo
categoryNo
group_idNo
order_byNo
per_pageNo
priorityNo
change_idNo
change_typeNo
descriptionNo
backout_planNo
requester_idNo
rollout_planNo
sub_categoryNo
workspace_idNo
change_impactNo
custom_fieldsNo
department_idNo
item_categoryNo
updated_sinceNo
planned_end_dateNo
impacted_servicesNo
reason_for_changeNo
planned_start_dateNo
maintenance_window_idNo
change_result_explanationNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some non-obvious behaviors, such as the maintenance_window_id being applied via follow-up PUT on create and the specific payload format on update, and clarifies the difference between assets and impacted_services. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, or error behavior, which would be expected for a mutation-heavy tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a well-organized docstring listing 35 parameters in a consistent format with notes where needed. Although lengthy, the information density is high and the structure is easy to scan. It could be improved by adding a brief overview at the top, but it is appropriately structured for the parameter count.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all 35 parameters and includes action-specific requirements and special notes, making it quite complete for a complex tool. However, some actions like 'filter' and 'get_fields' are not explained in depth, and there is no guidance on query syntax or output expectations (though an output schema exists). Overall, it is robust but leaves a few gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides enum mappings for priority, impact, status, risk, and change_type, indicates which parameters are mandatory for create, gives examples for assets and impacted_services, and explains maintenance_window_id's special handling. This highly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Unified change operations' and lists nine actions (create, update, delete, get, list, filter, close, move, get_fields), making it clear that this tool manages change entities. It is distinguished from siblings like manage_change_note and manage_change_task by focusing on the core change object, but the description could be more explicit about the domain and differentiate itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides parameter annotations that indicate which parameters are required for which actions (e.g., change_id for get/update/delete/close/move), which gives some usage guidance within the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/forterro/freshservice_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server