freshservice-mcp

by forterro

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

manage_change_note

Manage notes on change requests by creating, viewing, listing, updating, or deleting them in Freshservice.

Instructions

Manage notes on a change.

    Args:
        action: 'create', 'view', 'list', 'update', 'delete'
        change_id: The change ID
        note_id: Required for view, update, delete
        body: Note body HTML (create, update)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "change_id": "<change_id>"
    },
    "name": "manage_change_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`action`	Yes
`note_id`	No
`change_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that note_id is required for view/update/delete and that body is HTML used only for create/update. However, it does not discuss side effects of delete/update, permissions, or return behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, starts with the purpose, and uses a structured Args block. Every line provides value, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a CRUD tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers actions and parameters. It omits details like pagination for list or error handling, but these are likely addressed by the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 0% coverage, and the description compensates well: action lists the allowed values, change_id is identified, note_id is tied to specific actions, and body is described as HTML for create/update. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it manages notes on a change and enumerates the supported actions (create, view, list, update, delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting change notes specifically, rather than tasks, time entries, or release notes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The tool's scope is clear from 'on a change' and the action parameter provides a set of operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource context makes its use case unambiguous.

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