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 'List time entries' but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination, sorting, filtering beyond ticket_id, error handling, or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 of a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or error cases, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual details.

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 'ticket_id' clearly documented as 'The ticket ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('time entries') with the context 'for a Freshservice ticket', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticket' or 'list_tickets', which might also involve ticket-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as other list tools (e.g., 'list_tickets') or related get tools (e.g., 'get_ticket'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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