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. 'Create a new Freshservice ticket' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded, making it immediately understandable 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 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, how to handle errors, or how this differs from similar creation tools. The combination of complexity and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 14 parameters including constraints and relationships (like email/requester_id alternatives). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_change' or 'create_problem' beyond specifying it's for tickets, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 'place_service_request' or 'reply_to_ticket'. With many sibling tools available (including other creation tools and ticket-related operations), the lack of contextual usage information is a significant gap.

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