Search Freshdesk agents by name or email to retrieve an agent_id, then use that ID in ticket searches to find tickets assigned to the agent.
Search Freshdesk agents by name or email. Returns agent_id which can be passed to search_tickets agent_id to find tickets assigned to that agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns an agent_id and can feed search_tickets, which is useful, but it does not cover read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or empty-result behavior for a search tool.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the primary purpose and then the downstream integration. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the entity, query modes, and the returned identifier's purpose. Minor gaps remain around result shape and matching behavior, but these are partially covered by the existing output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single query parameter. It adds meaningful semantics by saying the query searches by name or email, but it does not clarify matching behavior, format, or whether multiple results may be returned.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Search Freshdesk agents by name or email.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling find_requester and find_company by specifying the agent entity. An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.
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?
Explains the lookup purpose and explicitly connects the returned agent_id to search_tickets for assigned-ticket searches. It gives clear usage context but does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for looking up non-agent contacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.