Skip to main content
Glama
Support Ticket Triage MCP

Support Ticket Triage MCP

by MatiasLaukka

Related Servers

Alternatives to Support Ticket Triage MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server that acts as a governed customer-support tool, resolving questions only when the knowledge base supports a cited, grounded answer and honestly escalating everything else with provenance and evidence.
      24 PyPI
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A governed MCP server for integrating AI agents with customer data, featuring role-based access control, field redaction, and human-in-the-loop approval for secure support operations.
      1
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A local stdio MCP server that brings scattered tickets, transactions, and current policies together so a model can retrieve evidence, assess cases, and prepare reply and escalation drafts. All writes stay local and pending human review, with no ability to send messages, move money, change accounts, or publish content.
      7
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables AI agents to run allowlisted fleet SQL analytics, search synthetic policies, and submit ticket proposals for separate human approval, with role-based access, audit trails, and rate limits.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Incident Triage MCP is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for incident triage. It provides safe, auditable tools for evidence retrieval, deterministic summaries, ticket workflows, and notifications.
      28
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP server for retrieving a small evidence set and recording reviewed conclusions, policy-gated and redacted without giving an agent general filesystem access.
      5
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: list/get tickets differ from search/find, and the triage workflow has clear submit/approve/reject stages. No two tools share the same purpose or even overlap ambiguously.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (list_tickets, search_knowledge, submit_triage_recommendation). The verbs are varied but predictable, and there are no mixed naming conventions or cryptic abbreviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    9 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a necessary part of the ticket triage workflow—querying, analysis, auditing, and recommendation lifecycle—without redundancy or bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The core triage workflow is well-covered: ticket retrieval, duplicate detection, knowledge search, metrics, audit, and recommendation submit/approve/reject. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to retrieve or list existing recommendations, which could force agents to rely on audit events.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessOutdated data