close_ticketClose one of your tickets. rating (1-5) and comment are OPTIONAL — you can close without rating. Use the ticket code from create_ticket / list_tickets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rating | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| ticket_code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that closing can be done without rating, but it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether closing is irreversible, whether it notifies the other party, or whether the ticket becomes read-only). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second covers optional parameters and where to get the required input. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose, optionality, and input source. However, with no annotations or output schema, it leaves out behavioral consequences (e.g., whether closing is permanent, if it affects ticket status, or any prerequisites beyond ownership). It is adequate for a simple action but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that rating and comment are optional, and that ticket_code should come from create_ticket/list_tickets. It also mentions the 1-5 range for rating, which mirrors the schema but reinforces it. However, it doesn't elaborate on the comment parameter or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('one of your tickets'), clearly differentiating this from sibling tools like reply_ticket or get_ticket. The scope ('one of your tickets') adds ownership context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains that rating and comment are optional, and tells the agent to use the ticket code from create_ticket or list_tickets. This provides context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are cleanly separated into auth, billing, VPS lifecycle, tickets, and delegation, and each maps to a distinct resource/action. A few pairs like set_password vs reset_password and pay_invoice vs topup_balance share surface similarity, but their descriptions draw clear boundaries.
Naming is strongly consistent with verb_noun snake_case patterns such as order_vps, list_tickets, and revoke_delegation. Minor deviations are the bare CLI-style verbs login and whoami, plus the slightly awkward topup_balance, but these do not undermine the overall pattern.
27 tools is on the high side, but the server covers several distinct subdomains—account management, billing, VPS operations, support tickets, and delegations—and each tool appears to earn its place. The count is heavy but not unreasonable for the breadth of functionality exposed.
Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account creation/login, ordering and provisioning, power/reinstall/cancel, ticket conversations, and delegation management all have the necessary operations. Minor gaps exist, such as no change-password tool, no explicit RDNS/console tool despite delegation mentioning them, and no plan upgrade/downgrade tool.