start-work

Set ticket status

set_ticket_status

Move a ticket between todo, in-progress, in-review, and done statuses. Use it to update workflow state or return a ticket when work stops.

Instructions

Move a ticket to todo, in-progress, in-review or done. Use to put a ticket back if you stop work on it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "number": "<number>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "set_ticket_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`number`	Yes
`status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses little. It does not say whether the current status is overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, whether setting "done" triggers any downstream effect, or whether any permission is required.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target states before the usage hint. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence is a narrow usage note rather than the broader routing guidance an agent needs.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and target states adequately but omits parameter meaning and behavioral side effects. The relation to the closely named sibling start_ticket is left entirely implicit.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It restates the status enum values (already in the schema) but never explains that "number" is the ticket identifier or what format it takes, leaving one of two required parameters undefined anywhere.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ("move") and resource ("ticket") plus the exact target states, so an agent immediately knows what the call does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling start_ticket, which plausibly performs a subset of the same state change, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick for starting work.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

One concrete scenario is given: "Use to put a ticket back if you stop work on it." That implies usage for reverting progress, but there is no guidance on when to prefer start_ticket or open_pull_request instead, and no statement of when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server