Skip to main content
Glama
SShadowS

Zendesk MCP Server

by SShadowS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

update_ticket

Update an existing Zendesk ticket: change status, priority, assignee, tags, subject, type, group, custom fields, or add comments. Optionally apply a macro with explicit overrides.

Instructions

Update an existing ticket. Supports named_custom_fields (e.g. ado_work_item_id, pass null to clear) and raw custom_fields. Pass macro_id to apply a macro's field changes and comment as part of the update — explicit fields you also pass will override the macro's values.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTicket ID to update
tagsNoUpdated tags for the ticket
typeNoUpdated ticket type
statusNoUpdated ticket status
commentNoNew comment to add
subjectNoUpdated ticket subject
group_idNoNew group ID for the ticket
macro_idNoMacro ID to apply to this ticket. The macro's field changes and comment are merged into this update; any fields you also pass explicitly override the macro's values.
priorityNoUpdated ticket priority
assignee_idNoUser ID of the new assignee
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious merge semantics: macro_id applies field changes and a comment, and explicit fields override the macro's values. It also notes that passing null clears named custom fields. It does not mention partial-update semantics or response shape, but the key side effects are surfaced.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core operation and highlights custom-field handling, and the second explains the macro merge behavior. The most important non-obvious information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 12-parameter update tool with nested objects, the description focuses on the genuinely tricky parts (macro merging, custom-field clearing/overrides) while the schema covers the rest. It lacks an explicit statement of partial-update behavior or return value, but the schema and macro explanation make the tool safely callable.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds useful emphasis on macro_id override behavior and null-to-clear for named_custom_fields, but these details also appear in the schema, so it adds little new meaning beyond a convenient summary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing ticket'), which clearly identifies the operation and contrasts with create_ticket by requiring an existing ticket. It also highlights the tool's distinctive macro and custom-field capabilities.

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 this is for modifying existing tickets and explains when macro_id is useful, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings like add_ticket_comment or create_ticket. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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