Add internal or public notes to tickets. Use to document updates, share progress, or communicate with clients.
Add a note to a ticket. Can be internal or public (visible to client).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Note content | |
| isPublic | No | Whether the note is visible to the client — maps to SuperOps' PUBLIC/PRIVATE note privacy (default: false, i.e. PRIVATE) | |
| ticketId | Yes | The ticket ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Input schema / properties / isPublic / descriptionPrevious value: -"Whether the note is visible to the client (default: false)"New value: +"Whether the note is visible to the client — maps to SuperOps' PUBLIC/PRIVATE note privacy (default: false, i.e. PRIVATE)"v1.6.3v1.6.0v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that notes can be internal or public, but this visibility detail is already covered in the schema's isPublic parameter description. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permission requirements, notification side effects, or whether notes can be edited or deleted.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key public/internal distinction. There is no wasted 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, the schema is fully documented, and there is no output schema to explain. The description conveys the main purpose and the public/internal distinction. It is not fully complete because it omits usage guidance and behavioral side effects, but the core context is sufficient for invocation.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already well documented. The description mentions internal/public notes, which corresponds to isPublic, but adds no syntax, format, or mapping detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a note to a ticket.' It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling operations like superops_tickets_update and superops_tickets_log_time, which modify or log rather than add notes.
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 action itself, and the second sentence adds context about internal versus public visibility. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as updating a ticket or logging time, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.