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 the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting ticket status), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 both parameters ('ticket_id' and 'task_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these IDs are needed for deletion. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without requiring compensation from the description.

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 task from a Freshservice ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_ticket' or 'delete_time_entry' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_asset' or 'delete_change' in terms of domain context, 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ticket and task), when-not scenarios (e.g., irreversible deletion), or direct alternatives like 'update_ticket_task' for modifying instead of deleting. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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