Skip to main content
Glama

DeskCrew

by io.deskcrew

resolve

Marks a ticket as resolved by setting its status to "closed" and recording an internal status-change note on the timeline. Reach for this once the issue has been handled and you want to close it out; it is idempotent (a no-op returning changed:false if the ticket is already closed) and reversible (a human can reopen it from the dashboard). Requires the "send" tier on this credential. The note is an internal audit entry only and is NOT delivered to the customer. [$0.06 draft / live when trusted]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional internal resolution note (max 2000 chars) recorded on the ticket timeline as an audit marker. NOT sent to the customer; omit to use the default "Resolved by agent".
ticketIdYesThe id of the ticket to close, as returned by list_tickets, search_tickets, or get_ticket. Scoped to your tenant; a ticket id from another tenant returns NOT_FOUND.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: idempotency (no-op for already closed), reversibility (human can reopen), required credential tier ('send'), cost indication, and that the note is internal. This exceeds the burden for a mutation tool.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph with no filler. Every sentence adds value: action, usage timing, idempotency, reversibility, credential requirement, note behavior, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the tool's complete behavior: what it does, side effects, prerequisites, idempotency, reversibility, and note handling. It provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: the note's internal-only nature and default value, plus the ticketId's scoping and error behavior (NOT_FOUND). This goes beyond 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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair ('Marks a ticket as resolved') and clearly states the action (setting status to closed, recording a note). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'assign' or 'create_ticket' by focusing on the resolution workflow.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Reach for this once the issue has been handled and you want to close it out', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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