GLPI MCP Server v2

glpi_get_ticket_timeline

Retrieve the complete timeline of a single GLPI ticket, including followups and tasks, to review all activity chronologically.

Instructions

Retorna a timeline de UM ticket (followups, tasks, etc).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_get_ticket_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID do ticket

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns timeline data but doesn't explain what types of events are included (beyond followups and tasks), whether there are any side effects (likely read-only but not stated), or how comprehensive the timeline is.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It provides the key information without wasted words, appropriate for a simple tool with one parameter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate for a basic retrieval tool. However, it lacks detail on the nature of the timeline content, which could be important for agent decision-making. Given the simplicity, completeness is acceptable but could be enhanced.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 for high coverage. No additional parameter details are needed.

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 tool returns the timeline of a single ticket, including followups and tasks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like glpi_get_ticket and glpi_add_ticket_followup, though it could be more explicit about the resource type (it's implied from the name and siblings).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving timeline data for one ticket, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like glpi_get_ticket or glpi_get_ticket_stats. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are given.

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