NexTool MCP for GLPI

Create followup template

glpi_create_itil_followup_template

Create a new GLPI ITIL follow-up template for Tickets, Changes, or Problems, specifying name, content, and comment to standardize service desk replies.

Instructions

Create a new followup template. Fields: name, content, comment, itemtype (Ticket/Change/Problem).

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_itil_followup_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Template fields

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`replayed`	No	True when an identical recent create was returned instead of repeated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the allowed itemtype values (Ticket/Change/Problem), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about required fields, validation, or side effects beyond the annotation set.

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?

Two short sentences, verb-first and front-loaded, with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though the field list could have been paired with required/optional markers.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation profile. Still, for a create tool it omits which fields are mandatory and any constraint on content/comment, leaving real gaps for an agent filling the input object.

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 declared schema is a loose wrapper ("Template fields" with additionalProperties), so despite the reported coverage it documents no individual fields. The description compensates by naming name, content, comment, and itemtype and enumerating the itemtype values, which is genuine meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new followup template") and names the concrete fields it accepts. The verb distinguishes it from the sibling family (list/get/update_itil_followup_template), though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. permissions, category linkage), and no mention of the alternative update/get/list siblings. Usage is only inferable from the create verb.

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

Deploy Server