How many tickets are open, waiting on the customer, closed, unassigned, assigned to the person you act for, and marked spam.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ticket_counts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to establish safety. It adds useful context by naming the exact ticket categories counted, including 'assigned to the person you act for,' but it does not describe the response shape, scope limitations, or whether counts respect workspace permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates all relevant ticket states without any wasted words. Every phrase contributes to clarifying what is counted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter counting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content by listing all counted categories. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the result is a set of counts per category, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero input parameters, so there is no parameter syntax or semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies an aggregate counting tool for tickets and enumerates the specific ticket states counted (open, waiting on customer, closed, unassigned, assigned to the person you act for, spam). It is distinguishable from list_tickets or get_ticket because it asks 'how many' rather than listing or fetching individual tickets, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by enumerating the counts it returns, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_tickets, get_report, or check_ticket_pages. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.