zendesk_list_macrosList macros (reusable sets of ticket actions/replies agents apply). Zendesk REST: GET /macros.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access | No | Filter by access, e.g. 'personal' or 'shared'. | |
| active | No | If true, only active macros. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by defining macros and citing the REST endpoint. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any other side effects. The description is consistent with the read-only annotation and adds minimal extra behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence that defines the resource and includes the REST endpoint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple list tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it names the resource, describes what macros are, and gives the endpoint. However, it omits any mention of pagination or return format, which would be expected for a list endpoint. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.
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 both 'access' and 'active' parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline. A score of 3 is the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool lists macros and defines them as 'reusable sets of ticket actions/replies agents apply'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which target macros.
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 implies usage by naming the resource and REST endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. No alternate macro-list tool exists among siblings, so the ambiguity is low, but guidance is still implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but zendesk_search_users overlaps with zendesk_search (which can search users with type:user), and zendesk_update_ticket can also add a comment, overlapping with zendesk_add_ticket_comment. These create minor ambiguity but are clarified by descriptions.
All tools use a consistent 'zendesk_' prefix and snake_case, but naming patterns deviate slightly: zendesk_current_user lacks a 'get_' verb, and zendesk_execute_view uses 'execute' instead of 'list' or 'get'. Overall, the conventions are mostly uniform and readable.
19 tools is on the higher end but each corresponds to a distinct Zendesk API endpoint or operation. The count is well-scoped for a server covering tickets, users, organizations, views, macros, and satisfaction ratings, without excessive redundancy.
The ticket lifecycle is well covered (create, get, update, comment, list, search, metrics, views), and listing entities like orgs, groups, macros, and fields is supported. Minor gaps exist for user/organization updates and a plain list_users tool, but these are not critical for core support workflows.