DeskCrew

link_issue

Associate an existing support ticket with a tracked issue (bug or feature) in the same tenant, so the ticket is connected to the underlying work item. Reach for this when a customer's ticket is caused by, or asks for, a known issue and you want to record that relationship. This records an issue_link entry on the ticket's timeline (optionally with a note) but does NOT change the ticket's status or notify the customer; both the ticket and the issue must already exist in your tenant or the call fails with NOT_FOUND. [price: $0.03]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional human-readable note describing why the ticket is linked to this issue (max 2000 chars). If omitted, a default note referencing the issue id and title is recorded.
`issueId`	Yes	The id of the tracked issue (bug/feature) to associate with the ticket, as returned by list_issues or search_issues. Must belong to your tenant.
`ticketId`	Yes	The id of the ticket to link, as returned by list_tickets, search_tickets, or get_ticket. Must belong to your tenant.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility and does well: it explains the effect (adds issue_link entry), the optional note, and failure case (NOT_FOUND). It also includes a price hint. It is transparent and covers key behavioral aspects.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidance and side effects. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, use case, side effects, prerequisites, and failure mode. It is complete for an AI agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship of the note parameter and noting the default behavior if omitted, which enriches the schema 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 clearly states the action: 'Associate an existing support ticket with a tracked issue.' It uses specific verbs ('Associate', 'record') and resources ('ticket', 'tracked issue') and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_issue or create_ticket by focusing on linking existing entities.

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 a customer's ticket is caused by, or asks for, a known issue.' It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do (change status or notify) and prerequisites (both must exist), providing clear usage guidance.

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?