streamTicketMessagesStream live updates from a support ticket thread by providing its ID. Messages refresh every 2.5 seconds until the ticket closes.
Returns one frame. Sending Accept: text/event-stream instead follows the thread live, every 2.5 seconds, which stops only when the ticket disappears.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with this by only describing data retrieval and streaming. It transparently states the streaming termination condition (when ticket disappears), but does not mention any potential side effects or lack thereof beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the brevity slightly reduces clarity due to the lack of explicit context.
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?
The description provides basic operational context (frame vs. streaming, termination condition) and is complemented by the tool name and annotations. However, it lacks details on output format, the meaning of 'frame', and how this relates to other ticket-related tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
The schema has one required parameter 'id' of type string, but neither the description nor the schema provides any explanation of what this ID represents. The tool name suggests it is a ticket ID, but this is not stated, leaving the parameter semantics ambiguous and undocumented.
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 it returns a frame and can stream the thread live, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention 'messages' or define what a 'frame' is, though the tool name provides strong context.
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?
The description explains that sending an 'Accept: text/event-stream' header enables live streaming, which is a specific usage instruction. It also mentions that streaming stops when the ticket disappears, providing operational guidance. It does not compare with similar tools like getTicket or listTickets, but the usage hint is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.