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 for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While arguably too brief for a complex tool, every word serves a purpose and there's no redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'problem' is in Freshservice context, what fields are updatable, what the operation returns, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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?

With only 10% schema description coverage (only 'problem_id' has a description), the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what the 9 other parameters represent, their valid values beyond schema constraints, or how they affect the problem update. The description fails to compensate for the poor schema documentation.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing Freshservice problem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_problem' by specifying it updates existing records rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or the scope of changes.

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 (like needing an existing problem ID), when to use update_problem versus create_problem, or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter requirements alone.

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