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. 'List' implies a read operation, but there's no disclosure of pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes an 'asset' versus 'configuration item'. The description states what it does but not how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology. Every word earns its place, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, what fields assets contain, how configuration items relate to assets, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (page and per_page with maximum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain default values, pagination strategy, or relationship between assets and configuration items. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the resource 'Freshservice assets/configuration items', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_asset' (singular) or 'search_tickets', but the plural 'list' implies a collection operation. The purpose is specific enough 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_asset' (singular retrieval), 'search_tickets' (filtered search), and 'list_tickets' (similar list operation for tickets), there's no indication of when this asset listing is appropriate versus other listing or retrieval tools. The agent must infer usage from naming patterns alone.

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