Freshservice MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists items but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., array of objects with fields), pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'list' but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.

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 gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns data. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structure of catalog items), how to handle pagination beyond the parameters, or any error conditions. For a list operation with multiple sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'page' and 'per_page' parameters. The description doesn't add any semantic information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain default values, typical usage patterns, or how pagination works in practice). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('items in the Freshservice service catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_catalog_item' (singular) or 'place_service_request', which might be relevant alternatives for related actions.

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 use 'list_service_catalog_items' instead of 'get_service_catalog_item' (for a single item) or 'place_service_request' (for requesting a catalog item), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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