Skip to main content
Glama

DeskCrew

by io.deskcrew

list_issues

Read-only: lists this tenant's tracked issues (bugs and feature requests) from the public roadmap/issue tracker, newest first. Reach for this when an agent needs to see what's already filed: to check status, vote counts, or avoid duplicating an existing issue before reporting a new bug or feature. Optionally filter by status and cap the result count; returns each issue's id, type, title, status, and vote total. [free]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOptional maximum number of issues to return, an integer between 1 and 50. Defaults to 25 if omitted.
statusNoOptional filter: only return issues currently in this status. One of 'open', 'planned', 'in_progress', 'shipped', 'declined', or 'duplicate'. Omit to return issues in any status.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Labels tool 'read-only', mentions filter and limit behavior, and lists return fields. Does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but those are minor for a tenant-specific read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with key information. Efficient and to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and two optional params, description covers purpose, usage, and return shape. Omits mention of default limit (25) from schema but still adequate.

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 description adds limited value beyond the schema. It mentions optional filtering and cap on count, but this is redundant with the schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists issues (bugs and feature requests), sorted newest first, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue and list_tickets.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: to check status, vote counts, avoid duplicate before reporting. Provides clear context and implicitly suggests not to use it for creating issues.

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

All DeskCrew toolsInspect
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