zd_search_ticketsSearch Zendesk tickets with a query string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g., "status:open priority:high") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Total matching count | |
| results | No | Search results | |
| next_page | No | URL to next page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Total matching count",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "next_page": {
+ "description": "URL to next page",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Search results",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Ticket description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Ticket ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "priority": {
+ "description": "Ticket priority",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Ticket status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "description": "Ticket subject",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "status:open priority:high"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "assignee:me status:pending"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination, or result format. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enriched.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No superfluous words or redundant information.
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 is minimal but sufficient given the simple tool (one parameter, annotations, output schema exists). However, it lacks mention of the return format or that it uses Zendesk's search API, which would help an agent anticipate results. Adequate but not enriched.
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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool description merely restates 'with a query string', adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Zendesk tickets', and the method 'with a query string'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like zd_list_tickets (listing without search) and zd_get_ticket (single ticket retrieval).
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zd_list_tickets or zd_get_ticket. The context is implied but not stated, and no when-not or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) which all provide factual answers, making it unclear which to use. The set also mixes Zendesk tools with a large number of prediction market and data tools, creating confusion.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: Zendesk tools use 'zd_' prefix, Pipeworx tools use various prefixes like 'ask_', 'bet_', 'compare_', etc., and some are named with full words. There is no uniform pattern across the set.
35 tools is high for a server named 'Zendesk', especially since only 5 are Zendesk-specific. The majority are unrelated to Zendesk, indicating the tool count is inappropriate for the implied purpose.
For a Zendesk server, the tool set is severely incomplete, offering only basic CRUD operations (get, list, search for tickets and users). Missing essential Zendesk features like ticket creation, update, delete, or macros, while containing many irrelevant tools from other domains.