Skip to main content
Glama

Sweeppea MCP

by com.sweeppea.mcp

create_ticket

Create a new support ticket with title, description, and priority level. ASSIGNMENT: Optionally assign to a specific admin by name or email via assign_to. If omitted, the ticket is assigned to all admins. Only admin-level users can be assigned. NEVER guess or fabricate admin names or emails — only use assign_to if the user explicitly provides a name or email. FORMAT: Only these HTML tags are allowed in description: , , , , . NEVER insert scripts, iframes, event handlers (onclick, onerror, etc.), style tags, or any executable code. SPACING: Do NOT use   — it creates ugly blank blocks in the UI. Use for line breaks within text only.

create_ticket

When to use

Create a new support ticket with title, description, and priority level. ASSIGNMENT: Optionally assign to a specific admin by name or email via assign_to. If omitted, the ticket is assigned to all admins. Only admin-level users can be assigned. NEVER guess or fabricate admin names or emails — only use assign_to if the user explicitly provides a name or email. FORMAT: Only these HTML tags are allowed in description: , , , , . NEVER insert scripts, iframes, event handlers (onclick, onerror, etc.), style tags, or any executable code. SPACING: Do NOT use   — it creates ugly blank blocks in the UI. Use for line breaks within text only.

Parameters to validate before calling

  • title (string, required) — Ticket subject/title (max 200 characters)

  • description (string, required) — Detailed description of the issue (max 20,000 characters). Allowed HTML: , , , , . No scripts, iframes, or executable code.

  • priority (number, required) — one of: 1, 2, 3 — Priority level: 1 (Low), 2 (Medium), 3 (High)

  • assign_to (string, optional) — Name or email of an admin user to assign the ticket to exclusively. If omitted, the ticket is assigned to all admins. Matching is case-insensitive for names and exact for emails. Only admin-level users can be assigned.

Notes

  • Allowed HTML tags: b, strong, i, hr, br

  • Do NOT use   — only for line breaks within text

  • Search fetch_documentation first; only open a ticket if docs do not solve the question

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTicket subject/title (max 200 characters)
priorityYesPriority level: 1 (Low), 2 (Medium), 3 (High)
assign_toNoName or email of an admin user to assign the ticket to exclusively. If omitted, the ticket is assigned to all admins. Matching is case-insensitive for names and exact for emails. Only admin-level users can be assigned.
descriptionYesDetailed description of the issue (max 20,000 characters). Allowed HTML: <b>, <strong>, <i>, <hr>, <br>. No scripts, iframes, or executable code.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses specific behaviors: ticket is assigned to all admins if assign_to is omitted, never fabricate admin credentials, HTML tag whitelist and security restrictions, and spacing conventions. This adds substantial operational context that annotations alone would not convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with headings and bullet points, but it is verbose and repetitive. The opening paragraph duplicates the 'When to use' section, and formatting restrictions appear twice (in the intro and in Notes). While the organization aids scanning, redundant statements prevent a higher score.

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?

For a create operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: required fields, optional assignment semantics, security constraints, and a clear directive on when to avoid using the tool. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance for assign_to (do not guess, case-insensitive names, exact emails) and clarifes the allowed HTML in description. However, much of the 'Parameters to validate' section repeats schema descriptions, so the incremental value is solid but not exceptional.

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 opens with 'Create a new support ticket with title, description, and priority level' — a specific verb + resource + key parameters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools (create_note, create_todo, etc.) and states the primary action unambiguously.

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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Search fetch_documentation first; only open a ticket if docs do not solve the question.' It also details when the optional assign_to parameter should be used (only when user explicitly provides a name or email), and notes the prerequisite that only admin-level users can be assigned.

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

All Sweeppea MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources