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. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results will be in. For a list tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'problem' entity represents in Freshservice, what fields are returned, pagination behavior, or how results are structured. The agent has minimal context to use this tool effectively.

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% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 - the schema does some work but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'order_by' and 'order_type' parameters beyond their enum values.

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 'List Freshservice problems' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Freshservice problems'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'list_tickets' or 'list_changes' - all are list operations on different Freshservice entities. The purpose is clear but lacks 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. There's no mention of when to use list_problems versus get_problem (single vs multiple), versus list_tickets (different entity types), or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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