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. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible action, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or any confirmation steps. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded, immediately communicating the core functionality without any fluff or 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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (permanent removal? archiving?), what permissions are needed, what happens to related data, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more context is essential.

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 the single parameter 'problem_id' clearly documented as 'The problem ID to delete.' The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one well-documented parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the simplicity of a single parameter justifies a 4.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a Freshservice problem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like delete_asset, delete_change, delete_ticket, etc., which all follow the same 'delete [resource]' pattern.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the problem ID), consequences of deletion, or when to choose delete_problem over other deletion tools like delete_ticket or delete_change.

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