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 for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether this is a read-only operation, or what the output format looks like. 'List' suggests a read operation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the filtering options, pagination behavior, ordering capabilities, or what information is returned. The agent would need to infer much from parameter names and enums alone.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions), but the description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name. The enums for 'filter', 'order_by', and 'order_type' provide some structure, but the description doesn't explain what these filters mean or how they affect results. This meets the baseline for moderate 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 resource ('Freshservice change requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_change' (which presumably retrieves a single change) or 'list_problems' (which lists a different resource type), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. There's no mention of when to use 'list_changes' versus 'get_change' (for single changes) or 'list_tickets' (for different resource types), nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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