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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., fields returned). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral context like permissions or response format.

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, clearly front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail in the response, potential errors, or authentication needs. For a tool with no structured output or behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective 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 'category_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The category ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or valid ranges. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but relies 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 resource 'details of a knowledge base category', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_solution_categories' (which likely lists multiple) by focusing on retrieving details for a single category. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_solution_folder' or 'get_solution_article', leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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 a category ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_solution_categories' for browsing or 'get_solution_folder' for folder details. Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context.

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