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 it 'gets all conversations' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns paginated results, the format of conversations (e.g., structured vs. raw text), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a read operation 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 purpose ('Get all conversations for a ticket') and adds clarifying detail ('replies and notes') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has one parameter with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the scope (conversations include replies and notes), but lacks details on return format, pagination, or error cases, which are important for a read operation without structured output documentation.

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 'ticket_id' documented as 'The ticket ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID) or constraints (e.g., must be an existing ticket). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get all conversations') and resource ('for a ticket'), specifying it includes replies and notes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ticket' (which likely returns ticket metadata) and 'reply_to_ticket' (which creates a reply), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_tickets' or 'search_tickets' which operate on multiple tickets.

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 valid ticket ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating conversations), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_ticket' (for metadata) or 'reply_to_ticket' (for adding replies).

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