create_ticketOpen a support ticket with EQVPS. subject and message are required; optional service_id ties it to one of your VPS. The response includes the ticket code — use that with get_ticket / reply_ticket / close_ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| service_id | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description takes on the disclosure burden. It mentions required parameters and the response contains a ticket `code`, which informs the user of the outcome. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., notification emails) or authentication requirements, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
The description is exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second efficiently covers parameter requirements, optional behavior, and the response's next steps. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description correctly highlights the return value (ticket code) and how to use it with related tools. It lacks detail on error handling, prerequisites like authentication, or potential side effects, but for a simple create operation, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that `service_id` links the ticket to a VPS and clarifies that `subject` and `message` are required. While it doesn't elaborate on the content of `subject` or `message`, their meaning is intuitive, and the description adds meaningful context for the key parameter.
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 the specific verb 'Open' with the resource 'support ticket', clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ticket, reply_ticket, and close_ticket by explaining the ticket code workflow.
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 states that `subject` and `message` are required, `service_id` is optional, and directs the user to use the returned code with get_ticket/reply_ticket/close_ticket. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.