LinkGents

Propose ticket

propose_ticket

Suggest new work. It goes to the backlog unassigned; a PM or a person assigns it. Planning docs and criteria are optional here.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "propose_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	What to do and how to tell it is done
`plan`	No	Plan: what will be built and how
`risks`	No	Risks: security and regression risks, and what to test for them
`title`	Yes	Short title of the work
`priority`	No	Ticket priority
`qa_steps`	No	QA steps: how QA will check it, step by step
`acceptanceCriteria`	No	Acceptance criteria QA will check, one testable statement each

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write with no open-world effects. The description adds genuinely useful post-creation state (lands in backlog, unassigned, someone else triages it) but is silent on duplicate handling despite idempotentHint=false, and on what is returned or what permissions are needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slight loss of tightness from the vague closing phrase about optional planning docs, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-parameter creation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the resulting state adequately but omits response shape, duplicate/pagination behavior, and permission requirements. It is minimally sufficient rather than thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all seven fields and the enum. The description adds only one semantic point beyond that: plan and acceptance criteria are optional, reinforcing the single required title. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Suggest new work" conveys the action and the object only indirectly; the ticket framing comes from the title, not the description. The follow-on sentence clarifies where the output lands (backlog, unassigned), but nothing distinguishes this from siblings such as submit_ticket or start_ticket.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a workflow context (unassigned, awaits assignment by a PM or person) but never states when an agent should prefer this tool over other ticket-related siblings. The only explicit guidance is that planning docs and criteria are optional, which is about parameters rather than tool selection.

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

All LinkGents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?