DeskCrew

get_ticket_context

Read-only: returns a complete working bundle for one ticket so an agent can draft an informed reply or triage it: the full message thread, the customer profile, that customer’s other tickets, similar already-resolved tickets, and the most relevant published knowledge-base articles in the tenant. Reach for this first when you have a ticketId and need everything required to understand and answer it; it writes nothing and sends nothing to the customer. [price: $0.02]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kbLimit`	No	Optional: max number of relevant published knowledge-base articles to return via full-text search. Defaults to 3 if omitted.
`ticketId`	Yes	The id of the ticket to load context for, as returned by list_tickets or search_tickets. Must belong to your tenant; an unknown id returns NOT_FOUND.
`threadLimit`	No	Optional: max number of timeline entries (messages, notes, drafts) to return from the ticket thread, oldest first. Defaults to 50 if omitted.
`similarLimit`	No	Optional: max number of similar already-resolved tickets to return via full-text search. Defaults to 5 if omitted.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and lists all returned data types. It also mentions a price. It does not discuss rate limits or errors, but overall it is quite transparent about behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is comprehensive yet concise, front-loading the key fact 'Read-only'. It lists the components and usage guidance efficiently. A minor point: some phrases could be merged, but overall it is well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (thread, profile, other tickets, similar resolved, KB articles). It also provides usage context (for drafting or triage) and price. This is complete for a context-fetching tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it provides context (e.g., 'full message thread' hints at threadLimit) but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already does. The description adds no new semantic info.

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 clearly states it is a read-only tool that returns a comprehensive working bundle for a single ticket, including thread, customer profile, other tickets, similar resolved tickets, and KB articles. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Reach for this first when you have a ticketId' and noting it writes nothing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use: 'when you have a ticketId and need everything required to understand and answer it'. It also indicates when not to use by stating 'it writes nothing and sends nothing to the customer', differentiating it from write or send tools.

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?