finance

Support: Reply to support ticket

reply_to_support_ticket

    Reply to one of the user's own support tickets.

    If the ticket was resolved or closed, replying reopens it (the
    service layer handles this), so the user can resume the conversation.
    Writes to Zoninga's own support desk (no third-party service).
    API docs: https://zoninga.com/ai/#support-tickets

    Args:
        ticket_id: The ID of the ticket to reply to.
        body: The reply text (1-5000 chars).

    Returns:
        ``{"success": True, "reply": {...}, "ticket": {"id", "status"}}``
        (``ticket.status`` reflects any reopen), or ``{"error": "..."}``
        if the ticket isn't found / isn't the caller's, or the body is
        invalid.

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": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_support_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`ticket_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds the important non-obvious side effect that replying reopens resolved/closed tickets, clarifies it writes to Zoninga's own desk rather than a third party, and enumerates failure modes (ticket missing, not the caller's, invalid body).

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, and the reopen/side-effect detail follows logically. The docstring-style Args/Returns blocks and API link add some bulk, but each section carries information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape including how ticket.status reflects a reopen and the error envelope, plus input constraints and error cases. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it documents both parameters and adds a meaningful constraint (body 1-5000 chars) absent from the schema. The ticket_id note is thin, merely restating the name, which keeps it from a 5.

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 (reply) and resource (support ticket) with an ownership scope ("one of the user's own"), which cleanly separates it from create_support_ticket, get_support_ticket, and list_support_tickets. An agent can identify the operation 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the use case clear (replying to an existing ticket) and adds a valuable condition: if the ticket was resolved or closed, replying reopens it. It does not explicitly name siblings like create_support_ticket as the alternative for new tickets, so it falls short of a full routing statement.

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?