finance

Support: Create support ticket

create_support_ticket

    File a new support ticket on the user's behalf.

    Writes to Zoninga's own support desk (no third-party service). Staff
    handle the ticket on the web support hub and the user is notified of
    replies. API docs: https://zoninga.com/ai/#support-tickets

    Args:
        subject: Short summary (1-200 chars).
        body: The full message describing the issue (1-5000 chars).
        category: One of ``bug``, ``feature``, ``billing``, ``account``,
            ``other`` (default ``other`` — staff re-triage anyway).
            Priority is NOT settable here — staff triage urgency.

    Returns:
        ``{"success": True, "ticket": {...}}`` (the new ticket, with its
        initial message counted), or ``{"error": "..."}`` on validation
        failure.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_support_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`body`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`category`	No	other

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it writes to Zoninga's own desk (not a third party), staff triage on the web hub, the user is notified of replies, priority is deliberately not settable, and it gives the return shape.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then Args/Returns are cleanly structured with no filler. Slightly longer than strictly necessary (docs URL, triage rationale) but every line adds usable information.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully documents inputs, defaults, return shape (success/error), and downstream behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it gives length bounds for subject (1-200) and body (1-5000), enumerates the allowed category values, states the default (other) with rationale, and clarifies that priority is intentionally absent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("File a new support ticket on the user's behalf") and the word "new" plus "on the user's behalf" cleanly separates it from reply_to_support_ticket, get_support_ticket and list_support_tickets. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the context (creating a fresh ticket for the user) but never states when to use this versus reply_to_support_ticket or when not to file one. The only routing signal is the note that priority is not settable here, which is helpful but not a when-to-use rule.

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

All finance 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?