Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_create_issue

Create new support tickets in Pylon with title, HTML content, priority levels, and assignment details for customer issue tracking.

Instructions

Create a new issue/ticket in Pylon

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTitle of the issue
body_htmlYesHTML content of the issue body
account_idNoAssociated account ID
assignee_idNoUser ID to assign the issue to
contact_idNoAssociated contact ID
requester_idNoRequester contact ID
tagsNoTags to apply
priorityNoIssue priority

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:321-346 (registration)
    Registration of the MCP tool 'pylon_create_issue', including description, Zod input schema, and thin handler that delegates to PylonClient.createIssue() and returns formatted JSON response.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_create_issue',
    	'Create a new issue/ticket in Pylon',
    	{
    		title: z.string().describe('Title of the issue'),
    		body_html: z.string().describe('HTML content of the issue body'),
    		account_id: z.string().optional().describe('Associated account ID'),
    		assignee_id: z
    			.string()
    			.optional()
    			.describe('User ID to assign the issue to'),
    		contact_id: z.string().optional().describe('Associated contact ID'),
    		requester_id: z.string().optional().describe('Requester contact ID'),
    		tags: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe('Tags to apply'),
    		priority: z
    			.enum(['urgent', 'high', 'medium', 'low'])
    			.optional()
    			.describe('Issue priority'),
    	},
    	async (params) => {
    		const result = await client.createIssue(params);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the pylon_create_issue tool.
    {
    	title: z.string().describe('Title of the issue'),
    	body_html: z.string().describe('HTML content of the issue body'),
    	account_id: z.string().optional().describe('Associated account ID'),
    	assignee_id: z
    		.string()
    		.optional()
    		.describe('User ID to assign the issue to'),
    	contact_id: z.string().optional().describe('Associated contact ID'),
    	requester_id: z.string().optional().describe('Requester contact ID'),
    	tags: z.array(z.string()).optional().describe('Tags to apply'),
    	priority: z
    		.enum(['urgent', 'high', 'medium', 'low'])
    		.optional()
    		.describe('Issue priority'),
    },
  • Handler function that executes the tool logic by calling PylonClient.createIssue and returning the result as a text content block.
    async (params) => {
    	const result = await client.createIssue(params);
    	return {
    		content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    	};
    },
  • Core implementation in PylonClient: defines TypeScript parameters and makes POST request to Pylon API /issues endpoint.
    async createIssue(data: {
    	title: string;
    	body_html: string;
    	account_id?: string;
    	assignee_id?: string;
    	contact_id?: string;
    	requester_id?: string;
    	user_id?: string;
    	tags?: string[];
    	attachment_urls?: string[];
    	custom_fields?: object[];
    	priority?: 'urgent' | 'high' | 'medium' | 'low';
    	destination_metadata?: object;
    }): Promise<SingleResponse<Issue>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Issue>>('POST', '/issues', data);
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of an Issue object returned by the API.
    export interface Issue {
    	id: string;
    	title: string;
    	state: string;
    	priority?: string;
    	body_html?: string;
    	assignee_id?: string;
    	team_id?: string;
    	account_id?: string;
    	contact_id?: string;
    	requester_id?: string;
    	tags?: string[];
    	created_at?: string;
    	updated_at?: string;
    	customer_portal_visible?: boolean;
    	issue_type?: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an issue but doesn't mention what happens after creation (e.g., whether it returns an ID, triggers notifications, or requires specific permissions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., how 'account_id' differs from 'contact_id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new issue/ticket in Pylon'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pylon_update_issue' or 'pylon_delete_issue' by specifying creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'pylon_create_account' beyond the resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing account/contact IDs), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing issues), or refer to sibling tools like 'pylon_update_issue' or 'pylon_search_issues' for different scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server