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 mentions listing articles but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's paginated (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not stated), what the output format is (no output schema), if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a list operation with parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant 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?

Given the complexity (a list operation with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like pagination mechanics, output structure, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively beyond basic purpose.

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 low (33%), with only 'folder_id' documented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'folder_id' refers to, how 'page' and 'per_page' work together for pagination, or the meaning of the 'per_page' maximum. With 3 parameters and poor schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 ('articles in a knowledge base folder'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_solution_article' (singular retrieval) and 'create_solution_article' (creation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_solution_categories' or 'list_solution_folders' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid folder_id), compare to other list tools (e.g., 'list_solution_folders' for folders instead of articles), or specify use cases like browsing vs. searching. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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