Skip to main content
Glama

Update Ticket

update_ticket

Modify a ticket in the issue tracker: claim, resolve with a one-line gist, drop with reason, or replace blocking edges. Also set triage role, add comment, or check acceptance criteria.

Instructions

Change one Ticket. Lifecycle: claim, resolve with a one-line gist, or drop with a reason — at most one of those per call. Graph: replace the Edges, refused if they close a cycle. Annotations: triage role, a comment, ticking acceptance criteria; these touch no part of the graph. Any of the three groups may accompany the others or stand alone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTicket id, or the <effort>#<order> handle of a Legacy Ticket.
dropNoClose the Ticket as work ruled out of scope.
rootNoWorkspace directory. Defaults to the session workspace.
tickNoAcceptance criteria to check off, matched on their text.
claimNoTake the Ticket. Fails if another holder already has it.
statusNoNot settable directly — use claim, resolve, or drop. Named here to say so.
triageNoSet the triage role. A separate field from status; neither touches the other.
commentNoAppend to the comment log, stored exactly as written.
resolveNoClose the Ticket as a step on the route.
blocked_byNoReplace the Edges outright, each a plain Ticket id resolved repo-wide. An empty list clears them. A cycle is refused.
Behavior4/5

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

Despite annotations only indicating non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it mutates, cycle-closing edge replacements are refused, and annotation fields (triage, comment, tick) do not affect the graph. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover auth or full error behavior.

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 dense but well-structured, using colon-separated groups to organize a complex tool. Each sentence adds essential semantic information without verbosity, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description gives a complete mental model: what each parameter group accomplishes, how they interact, and key constraints (no cycles, lifecycle exclusivity). This covers the necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already present. The tool description adds value by grouping parameters into three conceptual categories (lifecycle, graph, annotations), clarifying mutual exclusivity (at most one lifecycle per call), and explaining that annotations operate independently of the graph.

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?

States 'Change one Ticket' with a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the three change groups: lifecycle, graph, and annotations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tickets or get_tickets while fully describing its scope.

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?

Provides clear internal usage rules, such as 'at most one of those per call' and the independence of the three groups. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'Change one Ticket' framing implies modification of existing tickets rather than creation or retrieval.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/51ck/frontier-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server