Skip to main content
Glama

Get support report

get_support_ticket
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one support report in full: status, the answers it was filed with and the conversation with Skydropx support (newest 50 messages), where list_support_tickets gives only summaries. Scoped to the connected Skydropx account. It only reads: the thread is not marked seen (support_replied_since_last_visit keeps its value until the report is opened in the app or answered with reply_support_ticket) and nothing is synced with support's helpdesk; the answer is what is stored, so a reply that just arrived shows after the next sync. An unknown id or folio, or another account's, returns error code NOT_FOUND. Check can_reply before reply_support_ticket; reply_reopens says replying reopens a finished report. Returns the report summary plus answers, can_reply, reply_reopens and messages.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_support_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe report's id (UUID) or its folio, from list_support_tickets or create_support_ticket; right after filing the folio is still empty, so use the id

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoReport id (UUID), for get_support_ticket / reply_support_ticket
typeNoReport type key (see list_support_ticket_types)
folioNoSupport's folio, which the user sees; null for a few seconds after filing
statusNoStage: created, progress, action (support waits for the user), finished, indemnified or reopened
answersNoThe form the report was filed with
subjectNoTitle the user sees in their list
messagesNoThe conversation, oldest first
shipmentNoThe shipment the report is about; null for a general report
can_replyNoWhether reply_support_ticket accepts a message
proactiveNotrue for a case support opened for the user
type_nameNoReport type, human-readable
created_atNo
updated_atNo
reply_reopensNoWhether replying reopens this finished report
support_replied_since_last_visitNotrue when support answered after the user last opened the thread

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the thread is not marked seen, nothing is synced with the helpdesk, recent replies may not appear until the next sync, and can_reply/reply_reopens should inform replies. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers in side effects and return context. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every sentence adds operational value, so it remains efficient for a tool with several non-obvious behaviors.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given read-only annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description still provides the missing behavioral context an agent needs: visibility semantics, sync delay, error behavior, reply gating, and what the response includes.

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 coverage is 100%, and the id parameter already documents UUID/folio usage and the post-filing folio caveat. The description adds the NOT_FOUND consequence for an unknown id or folio, but most parameter meaning is already carried by the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read one support report in full', and explicitly distinguishes it from list_support_tickets, which only gives summaries. An agent can immediately tell this is the detail/read-one tool rather than the listing tool.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It clearly positions the tool against list_support_tickets for summaries and tells the agent to check can_reply before calling reply_support_ticket. It also explains that unknown ids or folios return NOT_FOUND, giving practical usage boundaries.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources