Skip to main content
Glama
Teamwork

Teamwork

Official
by Teamwork
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

twdesk-get_ticket

Read-only

Retrieve a ticket by its ID, optionally specifying fields to include in the response.

Instructions

Get ticket.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the ticket to retrieve.
fieldsNoSparse fieldset: field names to include (e.g. ["id","name"]). Omit to receive all fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.39.3
    • removedInput schema / properties / fields / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / items
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / type
      Added value: +"array"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "fields"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]
  2. Addedv1.26.0
  3. Removedv1.25.0
  4. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.20.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Sparse fieldset: field names to include (e.g. [\"id\",\"name\"]). Omit to receive all fields."
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "fields"
+]
  5. Addedv1.18.3
  6. Removedv1.18.2
  7. Addedv1.17.2

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context such as error behavior, authentication needs, idempotency, or return format. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes no additional transparency.

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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no useful structure or front-loaded information beyond repeating the tool name.

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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description leaves out important context such as what is returned, how to handle the optional fields parameter, and when to prefer this over twdesk-search_tickets. The schema helps with parameters, but the description alone is not complete enough for confident selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters: id and fields. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already explains what each parameter does, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description, 'Get ticket.', is essentially identical to the tool name/title and adds no clarifying detail. It names the resource but does not differentiate this retrieval action from sibling tools like twdesk-search_tickets or twdesk-get_ticket_type.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this retrieves a single ticket by ID, nor does it contrast with twdesk-search_tickets or other get_* tools, so the agent is left without selection criteria.

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