Create relationships between two GLPI tickets, marking them as related, duplicates, parent, or child to track dependencies and consolidate duplicate issues.
Crée un lien entre deux tickets.
link_type : 1=Lié à, 2=Duplique, 3=Enfant de, 4=Parent de
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_type | No | ||
| ticket_id_1 | Yes | ||
| ticket_id_2 | Yes |
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 does not mention anything about the effect of existing links, directionality, permissions, idempotency, or return values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence plus a bullet list for link_type values. Every element earns its place with no unnecessary wording.
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?
The tool is simple with only three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and the link_type values, but it fails to explain directional semantics (which ticket is parent/child) or any behavioral outcomes. It is adequate but has clear gaps, especially given the lack of annotations.
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?
For ticket_id_1 and ticket_id_2, the schema provides only names, and the description adds no semantic meaning. However, the description does add meaning for link_type by enumerating its possible values, which is valuable. The coverage is incomplete, as the order/role of the two ticket IDs is not clarified, and the default value is not mentioned in the description.
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 the action ('Crée un lien') and the resource ('deux tickets'), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_ticket_links or merge_tickets, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when you need to link two tickets), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. It meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks direct exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.