Create a new GLPI support ticket, choosing between incident or service request, and set priority, category, assigned user, or group to route it correctly.
Crée un nouveau ticket.
type : 1=Incident 2=Demande de service
priority : 1 (très basse) → 6 (majeure)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| priority | No | ||
| category_id | No | ||
| assigned_user_id | No | ||
| assigned_group_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the type and priority code mappings, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications), whether authentication is required, what happens on successful creation, or whether the created ticket's ID is returned. This is minimal transparency for a create operation.
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 exceptionally concise, consisting of one sentence and a short bullet list. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides the necessary value mappings for type and priority. Every line earns its place with no wasteful verbosity.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, required field semantics beyond names, or any post-creation behavior. An agent would lack critical context about the outcome of the operation and how to interpret the optional assignee/category fields. The description is minimally viable at best.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'type' (1=Incident, 2=Service request) and 'priority' (1 very low to 6 major), but it does not explain the other five parameters, including required 'name' and 'content' or optional fields like 'category_id', 'assigned_user_id', and 'assigned_group_id'. Some names are self-explanatory, but the description adds meaning to only 2 of 7 parameters.
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 un nouveau ticket' (Creates a new ticket), which uses a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket, delete_ticket, and list_tickets within the same ticket domain. The additional type and priority mappings reinforce what the tool does.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that update_ticket should be used for existing tickets, nor does it state any prerequisites or context such as requiring a valid category or assignee. The usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.