Search a Freshdesk ticket's JSON attachment for specific domains or threat feeds in large files.
Search within a JSON attachment on a Freshdesk ticket. Useful for finding specific domains or threat feeds in large JSON files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| ticket_id | Yes | ||
| attachment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| attachment_id | 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 implies the target must be a JSON attachment, but says nothing about how non-JSON attachments behave, whether the query is substring/regex/path-based, permission requirements, or match semantics — all material for a search tool with no annotation coverage.
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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is closer to a use-case hint than essential specification.
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 return values needn't be explained. Still, for a 3-required-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the query semantics and error/edge behavior underspecified.
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. It adds meaning for 'query' by giving example search targets (domains, threat feeds), while ticket_id and attachment_id are self-evident from their names. It still leaves the query matching mode (substring vs regex vs JSONPath) undefined.
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 within') and resource ('a JSON attachment on a Freshdesk ticket'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_attachment_text or list_attachments. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The second sentence hints at usage ('finding specific domains or threat feeds in large JSON files'), giving implied context. However it never states when to prefer this over get_attachment_text or list_attachments, nor any prerequisites for obtaining the attachment_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.