ticket_getFull detail for one owned ticket: description, acceptance criteria, subticket progress, and the recent activity/comment trail. ticket_id is required. Use ticket_comments for complete bodies and older discussion pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "text"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields and clarifying that only recent activity/comment trail is included, implying a limitation compared to ticket_comments. This enriches the behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concise list of returned fields, followed by the required parameter and a pointer to an alternative. No redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.
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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and points to an alternative for more detailed comment bodies. It does not cover error conditions or pagination, but for a simple get operation with annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'ticket_id is required,' which is already in the schema's required list, adding no new information. It implies ownership via 'owned ticket' but does not clarify format, type, or any validation rules, leaving the parameter semantics minimal.
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 tool's purpose: fetching full detail for a single owned ticket, listing specific fields (description, acceptance criteria, subticket progress, recent activity/comment trail). It differentiates itself from the sibling ticket_comments by explicitly saying to use that for complete bodies, making the scope unambiguous.
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?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use ticket_comments instead (for complete bodies and older discussion pages), and notes that the ticket must be owned, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not mention other relevant siblings like ticket_list or ticket_get_burndown, but the primary alternative is addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.