GLPI MCP Server v2

glpi_create_change

Create a new change in GLPI by providing fields like name and content to manage ITIL change processes.

Instructions

Cria um novo change.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_create_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Campos do objeto a ser criado (ex: name, content)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a creation action but does not disclose any behavioral traits: what the creation implies, any side effects, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. Very minimal.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence, no fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Could be more informative, but as written it is concise and clear.

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?

The tool is a create operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description is just one line, giving no detail about required fields, validation, or response. Given the complexity of creating a change object, this is insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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% for the single 'input' parameter, which is documented as 'object fields to be created (e.g. name, content)'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It does clarify it accepts an object, but that is already in schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description says 'Creates a new change' (in Portuguese). It is a clear verb+resource sentence, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like glpi_create_ticket or glpi_create_problem, which have identical structure. It is not a tautology, but lacks detail to differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No indication of prerequisites, required fields beyond 'input', or typical scenarios. The tool exists among many create/search tools, but no context is provided.

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