Zendesk Live MCP

dashboard_by_field

Create a reconciled grouped breakdown of Zendesk tickets by a selected field, with optional filters and time range. Get a clear view of ticket distribution for analysis.

Instructions

Create one complete reconciled grouped breakdown. For several sections, use build_ticket_dashboard.

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": {
      "field_name": "<field_name>"
    },
    "name": "dashboard_by_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`months`	No
`filters`	No
`field_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it only says 'Create' without explaining if it's a read-only report or a mutating operation, nor does it disclose any limitations such as pagination or defaults. The word 'Create' could mislead an agent into thinking it's a state-changing operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The distinction from build_ticket_dashboard is efficient and valuable.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the description is minimal. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and return expectations. The mention of 'reconciled' and 'complete' raises questions rather than answering them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any parameters (field_name, limit, months, filters). The agent has to rely on names alone, which is insufficient.

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 states it creates a 'complete reconciled grouped breakdown', which is specific about the action and output. It also distinguishes from sibling build_ticket_dashboard by noting that tool is for several sections. However, 'reconciled' is not explained and could be ambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'For several sections, use build_ticket_dashboard', providing a clear alternative and a condition for when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention other sibling tools like run_ticket_report or list_report_fields, so coverage is partial.

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

Deploy Server