DeskCrew

triage

Classify an existing support ticket by setting any of its priority, tags, and/or category in a single call; reach for this after reading a ticket to route or label it for the team. At least one of priority, tagIds, or category must be provided. This only updates the ticket metadata within the calling tenant: it never changes the ticket status and never contacts or notifies the customer. [price: $0.03]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tagIds`	No	Optional. The complete set of tag ids to assign to the ticket (replaces any existing tags), max 20. Use ids of tags that already exist in this tenant; an unknown or cross-tenant id rejects the whole call. Omit to leave tags unchanged.
`category`	No	Optional. A free-text category label to store on the ticket (max 80 chars), e.g. "billing" or "bug". Omit to leave the category unchanged.
`priority`	No	Optional. The new priority to assign to the ticket; one of 'low', 'normal', 'high', or 'urgent'. Omit to leave the current priority unchanged.
`ticketId`	Yes	The id of the ticket to triage, as returned by the list/search ticket tools or a ticket-detail read. Must belong to the calling tenant.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool only updates metadata within the calling tenant, does not change status or contact customers, and that unknown/cross-tenant tag IDs reject the call. The cost of $0.03 is also mentioned.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and follows with key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without repetition, and the structure is logical.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, its constraints, side effects, and cost. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the description fills in remaining context.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: it clarifies that at least one of priority, tagIds, or category must be provided (not just optional), explains that tagIds replaces existing tags, and categorizes the effect as 'route or label'. This goes beyond the schema's 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 tool's purpose: 'Classify an existing support ticket by setting any of its priority, tags, and/or category'. It uses a specific verb-classify and resource-support ticket, and the phrase 'reach for this after reading a ticket' distinguishes it from sibling tools like `create_ticket` or `resolve`.

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 states when to use the tool ('after reading a ticket to route or label it for the team'), and what not to expect ('never changes the ticket status and never contacts or notifies the customer'). It also notes the precondition that at least one of priority, tagIds, or category must be provided.

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?