Search Freshdesk contacts by name or email and get the requester_id to pass to ticket search for all tickets from that person.
Search Freshdesk contacts by name or email. Returns requester_id which can then be passed to search_tickets to find all tickets submitted by that person.
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key return value (requester_id) and its chaining purpose, but says nothing about match behavior, pagination, or result limits.
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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, ending with the actionable handoff to search_tickets. Nothing wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return shape, and it correctly points at requester_id as the usable field. For a single-parameter lookup tool this is nearly complete, with only matching behavior left implicit.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Saying search works 'by name or email' adds meaning beyond the bare 'query' string, but it does not specify matching semantics (partial vs exact) or format expectations.
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 (Search) plus resource (Freshdesk contacts) and clarifies the mapping to 'requester' terminology, which lets an agent distinguish it from find_agent and find_company without opening schemas.
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?
Gives clear intended use and a workflow: it names search_tickets as the downstream consumer of requester_id. It lacks any explicit 'when not to use' or caveats about ambiguous matches, so it stops just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.