flocore_create_ticketRaise an operational ticket. WORLD-AFFECTING: this is gated on a human approval and will return APPROVAL_REQUIRED rather than executing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | a short summary of the ticket | |
| approval_id | No | after a person approved this exact call, the id of that approval; the call then runs once | |
| description | No | optional: full ticket detail | |
| tenant_slug | Yes | the tenant this ticket belongs to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / description / descriptionAdded value: +"optional: full ticket detail"Input schema / properties / tenant_slug / descriptionAdded value: +"the tenant this ticket belongs to"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"a short summary of the ticket"Input schema / properties / approval_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "after a person approved this exact call, the id of that approval; the call then runs once",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it is 'WORLD-AFFECTING' and gated on human approval, returning APPROVAL_REQUIRED rather than executing. This goes beyond the sparse annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by clarifying the approval gate and the expected return value. It does not, however, describe the full post-approval behavior or output, leaving a minor gap.
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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key behavioral caveat (approval requirement) placed immediately after. Every word is informative, and no fluff or repetition exists.
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 tool with four simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the most important behavioral nuance (approval gate). However, it lacks explicit usage guidance (when to use vs. siblings) and does not mention potential side effects beyond world-affecting. These are moderate gaps, but the tool is relatively simple, so a score of 4 reflects adequate completeness with minor opportunities for improvement.
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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters already have documented meanings in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra semantic benefit is delivered.
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 states a specific verb ('Raise') and a concrete resource ('an operational ticket'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flocore_list_tickets (listing tickets) or flocore_ask (querying). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately usable by an agent.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling tool (e.g., 'for read-only operations use flocore_list_tickets'). The usage context is only implied by the verb and resource.
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.