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 this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what details are returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter schema and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (no output schema exists), nor does it cover error handling or authentication. For a read operation, this is passable but leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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 single parameter 'problem_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('specific Freshservice problem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from list_problems by specifying retrieval of a single problem rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools like get_ticket or get_change, which have similar patterns.

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 when to use get_problem versus list_problems, nor does it clarify prerequisites like needing a known problem ID. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameter alone.

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