DeskCrew

send_reply

Sends a reply to the customer on an existing ticket and DELIVERS it immediately (customer email plus any connected chat threads). This is not a draft and it reaches the customer. Use this once you have a final, customer-ready answer; to instead queue a reply for human approval, use the draft tool. Requires a "send"-tier credential (a draft-tier credential is refused) and the ticket must already have a customer email on file or the call is rejected. [$0.06 draft / live when trusted]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The reply message to send to the customer, as plain text (1–8000 characters). This is the exact content the customer receives, so write it as the final, customer-ready message.
`ticketId`	Yes	The id of the ticket to reply on, as returned by list_tickets or get_ticket. The reply is delivered to the customer who owns this ticket; you cannot specify the recipient.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations; description fully covers behavior: immediate delivery, not a draft, credential requirement, rejection if no email, and cost. Provides all needed side-effect info.

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?

Four sentences, highly efficient. Front-loaded with action, then constraints, then alternative, then details. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, description fully covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, alternatives, and cost. 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 100% with good descriptions. Description adds context: body is final customer-ready message, ticketId ties to customer and delivery. Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb 'sends' and resource 'reply to customer on ticket' with immediate delivery. Distinguishes from draft tool.

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 states when to use (final answer), when not (use draft for approval), and names alternative. Also mentions credential and prerequisite.

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?