updateTicketUpdate support ticket status to open or resolved, or mark it as read to manage follow-ups.
Update ticket status or mark as read
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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?
While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description does not disclose the potential side effects of updating a ticket, such as whether changing status to 'resolved' closes the ticket or has additional consequences.
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 unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 tool is simple and the schema covers the main fields, but the description does not address the destructive hint or explain the effects of changing status, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to use it.
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 provides types, enums, and a const for the main fields, but the description adds little beyond naming 'status' and 'read'. The 'id' parameter's meaning is inferred from context rather than explicitly documented.
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 clearly states the operation: updating a ticket's status or marking it as read. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like addTicketMessage and getTicket, though it could be slightly more explicit about the allowed status values.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or distinguish it from related ticket actions such as adding a message or creating a ticket.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.