Create a task on a GLPI ticket to track work, set status, duration, assignee, and privacy. Use when adding actionable items or time entries to support tickets.
Crée une tâche sur un ticket.
status : 1=À faire 2=Terminée
duration_seconds : durée en secondes (ex. 3600 = 1h)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| ticket_id | Yes | ||
| is_private | No | ||
| assigned_user_id | No | ||
| duration_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action and explains two parameter values (status, duration_seconds), but omits side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return value. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise bullet list for two parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, any prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist), or the meaning of is_private and assigned_user_id, leaving significant gaps for safe autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful semantics for status (1=To do, 2=Done) and duration_seconds (in seconds with example), but ignores ticket_id, content, is_private, and assigned_user_id, leaving four of six parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Crée une tâche sur un ticket' (Creates a task on a ticket), providing a specific verb, resource, and context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks, update_task, and delete_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use this to add a task to a ticket. However, there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions mentioned, and no guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like add_followup or update_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.