Freshservice MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new Freshservice asset' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what the return value might be, error conditions, or any system-specific behaviors. The agent would need to guess about many aspects of tool behavior.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Freshservice asset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_asset' or 'delete_asset' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create_ticket'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it, or how it differs from other asset-related tools like 'list_assets' or 'update_asset' in context.

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