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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool has 3 parameters with low schema coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, behavioral expectations, and output format, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional assumptions.

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 33% (only category_id has a description), and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'category_id' refers to, how pagination works, or the meaning of 'per_page' maximum. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, but the baseline is 3 as it doesn't contradict the schema.

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 ('folders in a knowledge base category'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_solution_folder' (singular) or 'list_solution_categories', which might cause confusion about scope.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid category_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_solution_folder' for single folders or 'list_solution_categories' for broader listing.

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