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 without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it returns all agents or has limitations, or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with 4 parameters, this is insufficient transparency.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main action and resource, 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?

For a list operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address pagination behavior, filtering logic, response format, or typical usage patterns. While concise, it leaves too many operational questions unanswered for effective agent 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 50% (only email and active have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain pagination behavior, default values, or how filters combine. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('Freshservice agents') with clarifying context ('support staff'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_agent' (singular retrieval) or other list tools, but the resource specificity is adequate for basic understanding.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent' (for single agent retrieval) or other list_* tools for different resources. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or typical use cases beyond the basic action.

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