Freshservice MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get details', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if agent_id is invalid), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 ('Get details'). There's no wasted wording, but it could be slightly more structured by including key details. It earns a 4 for being concise, though it borders on under-specified.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves agent details. It doesn't explain what 'details' include (e.g., fields returned), potential errors, or dependencies. For a read operation with minimal structured data, it should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 'agent_id' documented as 'The agent ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID) or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting 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 'Get details of a specific agent' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'agent', but it's vague about what 'details' entails (e.g., fields like name, status, contact info) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'list_agents' (which likely returns multiple agents). It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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. For example, it doesn't mention using 'list_agents' to find agent IDs first or clarify that this is for retrieving a single agent by ID, unlike 'list_agents' for multiple agents. The description implies usage by specifying 'specific agent', but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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