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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical 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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loaded with the essential action and resource, though it could benefit from additional context given the tool's complexity.

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 mutation nature, 7 parameters with low schema coverage (14%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For an update tool in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is only 14% (1 out of 7 parameters described), so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'user_id', 'department_id', or 'asset_tag' mean, their formats, or relationships. The description fails to provide semantic context beyond what the sparse schema offers, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing Freshservice asset'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_asset' and 'delete_asset' by specifying it's for existing assets, though it doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_change' or 'update_ticket' 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the asset display ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new assets), or how it differs from similar update tools for other resources like changes or tickets. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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