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 states this is a list operation but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'requester' in Freshservice context. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides inadequate behavioral context for a tool with pagination parameters.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information (list requesters) and uses a clarifying parenthetical effectively. 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 pagination parameters (page, per_page) and filtering capability (email), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the paginated nature of results, filtering options, response format, or how requesters are defined in Freshservice. The description leaves critical operational context undocumented, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and 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 only 33% (1 of 3 parameters has a description), so the description needs to compensate but doesn't mention any parameters. The description implies filtering capability ('requesters') but doesn't connect to the 'email' filter parameter or explain pagination behavior. With low schema coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, this meets the baseline but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's minimally inferable.

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 requesters') with a clarifying parenthetical ('end users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_requester' (singular) by indicating this returns multiple items. However, it doesn't specify scope or format details that would make it fully distinct.

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 when to choose 'list_requesters' over 'get_requester' (singular lookup), nor does it indicate any prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or relationship to other list tools like 'list_agents'. Usage context is entirely implied rather than explicitly stated.

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