DeskCrew

assign

Assigns an existing ticket to a human agent on this tenant, recording an assignment event on the ticket timeline. Reach for this to route or hand off a ticket to a specific teammate. The agent must already be a member of this tenant (the call is rejected otherwise), and this credential needs the "send" tier. [$0.06 draft / live when trusted]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticketId`	Yes	The id of the ticket to assign, as returned by list_tickets, search_tickets, or get_ticket. Must belong to this tenant.
`assigneeId`	Yes	The id of the human agent to assign the ticket to, as returned by list_agents. The agent must be a member of this tenant or the call is rejected.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: recording an assignment event, rejection if agent not a member, and required 'send' credential. Extra detail on pricing adds transparency.

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 are tightly written with no wasted words; the main action is stated first, followed by usage guidance and qualifications.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage, conditions, and parameter sources, leaving no gaps.

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 100%, so the description adds value by specifying source functions for each parameter (list_tickets, list_agents), expanding on the schema's basic descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assigns') and resource ('ticket to a human agent'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'create_ticket' and 'send_reply' by focusing on assignment.

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 explicit context for when to use ('route or hand off a ticket to a specific teammate') and includes necessary conditions (agent membership, credential tier), though it does not enumerate alternatives.

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

All DeskCrew tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the presence of three drafting tools (draft_reply, draft_support_reply, propose_resolution) with overlapping functionality may cause confusion. Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_ticket, list_issues). However, a few tools like 'assign' and 'triage' are single verbs, and 'draft_support_reply' breaks the pattern slightly. Overall consistent but not perfect.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools is well-scoped for a customer support server covering ticket management, issue tracking, knowledge base, and changelog. Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core ticket lifecycle (creation, triage, assignment, context, drafting, sending, resolving) and supports issue linking and knowledge base search. Minor gaps like updating ticket details or bulk actions exist but are not critical.

Resources

Need Help?