Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Open Ticket

open_ticket

Injects a ticket reminder as a user message to give agents task context and keep ticket details visible during a workflow.

Instructions

Ticket reminder injected as a user message.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "open_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions injection as a user message, which hints at a side effect, but does not explain what gets created or modified, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what the injected message contains. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads a cryptic phrase without enough context to be actionable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is too vague for a tool with no annotations and no parameters. It leaves the agent unsure of the tool's purpose, effects, and appropriate usage context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything here.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Ticket reminder injected as a user message' does not clearly state what open_ticket does. It describes a mechanism (injection) rather than a verb+resource action, and does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools. An agent cannot confidently infer the tool's actual function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternatives exist among the siblings. The description provides no context that would help an agent choose between open_ticket and others like 'add' or 'record'.

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

Deploy Server