Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Freshdesk MCP Server

Freshdesk MCP Server

by mikeysrecipes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_canned_response_folder

Update a canned response folder's name in Freshdesk by providing the folder ID and new name.

Instructions

Update a canned response folder in Freshdesk.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_canned_response_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
folder_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no details about side effects, permissions, or behavior on missing folders. It merely states 'update', which implies modification but does not disclose any potential risks, reversibility, or prerequisites.

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 single, concise sentence with no extraneous words, which is efficient. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency, parameter semantics, and usage guidance, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope and implications.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. It does not mention folder_id or name, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for meaning. The description adds no value beyond the structured field definitions.

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 clearly states the action (update) and resource (canned response folder), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or list. However, it does not explicitly mention that the update is limited to the folder name, though the schema shows only 'name' as the updatable field.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_canned_response_folder or list_canned_response_folders. The description simply states the action without providing context, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools