officernd_list_ticketsList helpdesk tickets (member requests/issues) with subject, message, status (open/new/pending/resolved), priority, severity and assignee. OfficeRnD: GET /tickets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-50 (OfficeRnD's max; default 50). | |
| cursor_next | No | The cursorNext from the previous page. Omit for the first page. | |
| cursor_prev | No | The cursorPrev from a page, to go one page back. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /tickets) and the returned field set, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, default page behavior, or rate limits.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the endpoint tag appended. No filler, though the field enumeration is list-like rather than tightly integrated.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and even enumerates status values (open/new/pending/resolved). Pagination is fully covered by the schema, so the only real gap is guidance on when to use this versus sibling list tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with all three pagination parameters fully documented, including the 1-50 bound and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List helpdesk tickets') and clarifies the domain with a parenthetical ('member requests/issues'), plus enumerates the fields returned. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling, officernd_list_ticket_options, so differentiation is only implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over officernd_list_ticket_options or when a single-ticket fetch (via get) is more appropriate. Pagination is handled in the schema, but no usage context is offered in the description.
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.