Skip to main content
Glama
SShadowS

Zendesk MCP Server

by SShadowS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

create_ticket

Create a new Zendesk support ticket by providing a subject and comment, with optional fields for type, priority, status, assignee, and custom fields.

Instructions

Create a new ticket. Supports named_custom_fields (e.g. ado_work_item_id) and raw custom_fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTags for the ticket
typeNoTicket type
statusNoTicket status
commentYesTicket comment/description
subjectYesTicket subject
group_idNoGroup ID for the ticket
priorityNoTicket priority
assignee_idNoUser ID of the assignee
requester_idNoUser ID of the requester
custom_fieldsNoRaw Zendesk custom_fields entries ({id, value}). Escape hatch for fields not in the named map.
named_custom_fieldsNoNamed custom fields. Keys map to Zendesk custom field ids via src/config/custom-fields.js.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / named_custom_fields / properties / ado_work_item_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / named_custom_fields / properties / ado_work_item_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention side effects, authentication requirements, what happens on success (e.g., returned ticket object), or any other behavioral traits beyond the act of creating. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Create a new ticket') and then mentions the custom field support. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight key behaviors.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects) and lack of an output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the required fields (subject, comment) or what the response contains. There's no information about expected return values, error conditions, or special behaviors. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities without relying on the schema.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds a brief note about named_custom_fields and raw custom_fields, including an example (ado_work_item_id), which provides some value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't deeply clarify usage or constraints beyond what the schema already states, so it only marginally compensates.

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 'Create a new ticket' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions support for custom fields, which adds some detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_ticket, though the distinction is implied by the verb.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer other ticket-related tools like update_ticket or add_ticket_comment. The description simply states the action without context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools