createTicketCreate a support ticket to request help from Cloady. Submit a subject and message body to report issues or ask questions about cloud deployments.
Create a new support ticket
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | No | The JSON request body. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies. No side effects, prerequisites, or response behavior are disclosed.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately minimal for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices explanatory value for brevity.
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?
There is no output schema, so an agent does not know what the tool returns, and no guidance is given about authentication, side effects, or how this differs from ticket-related siblings. The schema covers parameters, but operational context is missing.
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%, so the schema fully documents the requestBody and its required subject/body fields. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already carries the burden.
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 ('Create') and a clear resource ('support ticket'), so an agent can tell this tool creates a ticket rather than listing, updating, or messaging one. It does not explicitly distinguish it from addTicketMessage, but the primary intent is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like listTickets, updateTicket, or addTicketMessage. The name implies creating a new ticket, but there is no explicit context or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.