Skip to main content
Glama

zendesk

by io.usefulapi

Update ticket

zendesk_update_ticket
Destructive

MUTATING: update an existing ticket. Provide the ticket id plus at least one field to change (status, priority, assignee_id, group_id, type, tags, or a comment). Zendesk REST: PUT /tickets/{id}.json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric ticket id (required).
tagsNoTags to set on the ticket (replaces existing).
typeNoNew type: problem | incident | question | task.
statusNoNew status: new | open | pending | hold | solved | closed.
group_idNoGroup id to (re)assign to.
priorityNoNew priority: urgent | high | normal | low.
assignee_idNoAgent id to (re)assign to.
comment_bodyNoBody of a comment to add as part of this update.
comment_publicNoWhether the added comment is public (default true; set false for an internal note).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description labels the operation as 'MUTATING', which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation but adds little beyond it. It mentions the REST endpoint and the need for an id, but does not disclose broader behavioral traits like whether updates are reversible or any rate limit implications. Given the annotation already signals mutation, the description provides minimal extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'MUTATING' and the action verb. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and requirements, with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a multi-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core requirement (id plus at least one field) and lists common fields. It does not describe the response format or error behavior, but the schema handles parameter details and the tool is relatively straightforward.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description reiterates some field names and mentions 'or a comment' without precisely mapping to the comment_body parameter, adding marginal value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('update an existing ticket') and specifies the resource. It also lists the mutable fields and the required ticket id, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like create_ticket or add_ticket_comment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates when to use the tool: to update an existing ticket with at least one field. It implies this is the right tool for modifying ticket attributes, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as zendesk_add_ticket_comment for adding comments. The context is sufficient but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All zendesk toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources