Skip to main content
Glama

get_ticket_pages

Read-only

A site's own ticket pages: its layout of a logged-in user's list of tickets and of a ticket's conversation, used on the site and where a link in our emails opens a ticket. Answers the draft being worked on, what customers see now, the starter HTML and CSS to begin from, the parts a layout has (data-help values) and the tags it may use. available says whether the plan can save one.

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": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ticket_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
product_idYesThe site's id (a uuid), from list_products.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by explicitly stating what the output includes, such as 'starter HTML and CSS,' 'data-help values,' and 'tags.' This provides valuable context about the content and nature of the retrieved artifacts.

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 a single, dense paragraph that packs a lot of complex information. While comprehensive, its lack of punctuation or structural breaks makes it slightly harder to scan quickly than a multi-sentence explanation.

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 that the output is a complex set of HTML/CSS/draft information without a defined output schema, the description is extremely complete. It details the scope (site's pages, logged-in user), the content (layout, CSS, tags), and even availability constraints.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter `product_id` is fully defined. The description does not add specific semantic meaning to the parameter itself, only to the resource being requested.

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 is highly specific, detailing exactly what the tool returns: the layout of a logged-in user's ticket list and conversation view. This is much more descriptive than simply stating it 'gets' ticket pages.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining that the data represents what customers see and how links in emails function. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the specific nature of the 'layout/draft' information implies its distinct use case compared to fetching a single ticket.

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