Freshservice MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with 13 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and gets straight to the point 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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'change request' is in the Freshservice context, what happens after creation, or provide any behavioral context. The agent would need to infer too much from the bare description and schema alone.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter documentation including enum mappings for priority, status, change_type, risk, and impact. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage but not providing additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('Freshservice change request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a creation tool among siblings that include other create operations (like create_ticket, create_asset) by specifying it's for 'change requests' specifically.

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 like create_ticket or create_problem. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide when this is the appropriate tool for the task at hand.

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