glpi_update_ticketUpdate an existing GLPI ticket by ID to change fields such as status, priority, or assignee. Use it to correct ticket details or record progress without creating a new ticket.
Update an existing ticket by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Fields to update | |
| ticketId | Yes | Item ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description is not the only source of behavioral information. However, for a destructive mutation the description adds nothing: it never says which fields are affected, what happens to unspecified fields, whether required auth/permission is needed, or how partial updates behave.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource; there is no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy of thought.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive, idempotent mutation taking a free-form nested input object whose accepted fields are entirely undefined. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description does nothing to close the significant input-field gap an agent needs to call this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported at 100%, and the schema documents ticketId ('Item ID'). The 'input' parameter is an open object (additionalProperties: {}) described only as 'Fields to update', so the actual updatable field names remain undocumented in both schema and description. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is the appropriate score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing ticket') plus a scoping detail ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is being performed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling mutators like glpi_update_change, glpi_update_problem, or glpi_update_entity, which share the identical verb+resource pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ticket ID, permissions, or lifecycle state), and no mention of sibling update tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.