Freshservice MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all tickets or a subset). The description is minimal and leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('List Freshservice tickets') and adds necessary qualification ('with optional filters'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, pagination strategy, or how filters interact. For a list operation with many siblings and rich filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional filters' generically but doesn't explain filter semantics, relationships between parameters (e.g., filter vs requester_id), or practical usage. It doesn't compensate for the 25% coverage gap (order_by and order_type lack schema descriptions).

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 ('Freshservice tickets') with scope ('with optional filters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_ticket' (singular) and 'search_tickets' (search vs list), though the distinction from 'search_tickets' could be more explicit. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 like 'search_tickets' or 'get_ticket'. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't specify use cases or prerequisites. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks context for optimal tool selection among siblings.

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