Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Help by DeltaBreen

by eu.deltabreen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

reply_to_ticket

Send a reply to the customer on a ticket. They see it where they wrote in, and by email if they confirmed their address. The ticket then stays where it was (or waits on the customer, where the workspace moves replies to waiting), or closes if you ask; a closed ticket stays closed. This reaches a real person: say what the person you act for would say.

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>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
closeNoClose the ticket after replying. Without this the ticket stays where it was, or waits on the customer where the workspace moves replies to waiting; a closed one stays closed.
filesNoFiles to send with it: up to five, 10 MB in all a call, each a picture, PDF, text file or ZIP. Needs the permission "Open and send files".
messageYesWhat to say to the customer, as plain text. It is shown to them and emailed if they confirmed their address.
ticket_idYesThe ticket's id (a uuid), from list_tickets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / close / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "boolean",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"boolean"
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "array",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"array"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the delivery path (the customer sees the reply where they wrote in and by email if confirmed), the post-reply ticket state (stays put or moves to waiting), and that optionally closing is effectively final because 'a closed ticket stays closed.' It also adds a human-impact warning consistent with openWorldHint=true. Annotations only flag the operation as non-read-only and open-world; the description supplies the operational consequences.

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, each doing distinct work: first the action and delivery, second the state consequence, third the human-facing caution. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no wasted clauses.

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 a fully documented schema and annotations covering read-only, open-world, idempotency and destructiveness, the remaining need is behavioral context about delivery and state. The description explicitly covers both, plus the human-recipient warning. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, so the schema already defines ticket_id, message, files, and close in detail. The description restates the close behavior and the message visibility, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields carry the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a reply to the customer on a ticket.' That clearly separates it from internal-facing siblings like add_private_note, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 reader can infer this is the tool for customer-facing replies, and the final sentence signals that care is needed because 'This reaches a real person.' However, it does not say when to use this versus add_private_note or update_ticket, nor does it state any exclusion or prerequisite for sending.

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 toolsInspect
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