Freshservice MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 data. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the return format, or potential errors. For a read operation with one parameter, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially since siblings include similar 'get_' tools with varying outputs.

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 (item_id is fully documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what an 'item_id' represents, how to obtain it, or provide examples. It relies entirely on the schema.

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' and the resource 'details of a specific service catalog item', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'list_service_catalog_items' (which presumably lists multiple items), though the distinction is implied by 'specific' vs 'list' naming.

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. While 'specific' implies it's for retrieving a single known item, there's no explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the item_id) or comparison to 'list_service_catalog_items' for browsing. The description assumes context but doesn't state it.

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