moxie-mcp

create_ticket_comment

Add a comment to an existing ticket, specifying the user, ticket number, comment text, and whether the comment is private.

Instructions

Add a comment to an existing ticket

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": {
      "userEmail": "<userEmail>",
      "ticketNumber": "<ticketNumber>",
      "comment": "<comment>",
      "privateComment": "<privateComment>"
    },
    "name": "create_ticket_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comment`	Yes	The comment text to add
`userEmail`	Yes	Email of a known contact or team member in your workspace
`ticketNumber`	Yes	The numeric identifier of the ticket to comment on
`privateComment`	Yes	Whether the comment is private (ignored if userEmail is a client contact)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Add a comment', omitting behavioral details like mutation effects, required permissions, or that privateComment flag behavior is conditional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely short (5 words), but fails to convey critical information. Overly terse rather than concise; not front-loaded effectively for agent use.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior or the effect of privateComment, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 the verb 'Add' and resource 'comment to an existing ticket', distinguishing it from sibling tool create_ticket which creates a new ticket. However, it could be more specific about public/private distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use the tool, prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist), or context compared to alternatives. The description lacks any usage hints.

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