Freshservice MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion 'moves to trash', which adds useful context beyond a simple 'delete' verb. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response behavior. For a destructive operation with no annotations, 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Delete a Freshservice ticket') and adds clarifying detail ('moves to trash') concisely. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like permissions, reversibility, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., trash management). The 'moves to trash' note is helpful but insufficient for safe agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'ticket_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ticket' or 'update_ticket' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (e.g., 'delete_asset'), though the resource specificity helps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ticket existence, permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete tickets in certain states), or comparisons to other tools like 'update_ticket' for soft deletion. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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