Help by DeltaBreen

press_button

Destructive

Press a button for the customer a ticket is from: the integration's URL is asked to act on their account in the workspace's own system (cancel, refund, and so on). It runs once and may not be possible to undo. Tell the person what you are about to do and get their yes first. A private note is added to the ticket.

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>",
      "button_id": "<button_id>",
      "word": "<word>"
    },
    "name": "press_button"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`word`	Yes	The button's word, exactly as list_buttons gives it. Ask the person to confirm before pressing a button.
`fields`	No	The button's extra fields, as an object of name to value, if it has any.
`button_id`	Yes	The button's id (a uuid), from get_customer_details or list_buttons.
`ticket_id`	Yes	The ticket of the customer whose account this acts on (a uuid from list_tickets). The customer must have been logged in.
`idempotency_key`	No	A key of your own for this press, 16 to 64 letters, digits, - or _. Send the same one if you retry, so the button runs once. Left out, each call is a new press.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / fields / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```
- addedInput schema / properties / fields / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / type
```
Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"string"
```
First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that the press delegates to a third-party URL, that it executes exactly once, that it may be irreversible, that it requires human confirmation beforehand, and that a private note is appended to the ticket as a side effect. The side-effect and confirmation disclosures are exactly the context an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the risk and the required confirmation step. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

A destructive, open-world action with no output schema, so the description must carry the risk profile — and it does: what executes, that it runs once, that it may be irreversible, that confirmation is required, and that a private note results. Nothing an agent needs before invoking this is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented in detail (word, button_id, ticket_id, idempotency_key), so the description does not need to carry parameter meaning. It reinforces the ticket scoping and the once-only semantics, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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+resource (press a button) and then defines what that actually means: the integration's URL is asked to act on the customer's account in the workspace's own system, with concrete examples (cancel, refund). An agent can distinguish it from create_button, update_button, list_buttons and test_integration without opening a 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?

Scoping is clear ('for the customer a ticket is from') and a required workflow is given ('Tell the person what you are about to do and get their yes first'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit exclusions (e.g. 'use test_integration to dry-run first, use create_button to define one'), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

All Help by DeltaBreen 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?