whmcs_update_ticketUpdate support ticket details in WHMCS by changing status, priority, department, subject, or assigned client.
Update ticket properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | No | Flag to admin ID | |
| name | No | Name | |
| No | |||
| deptid | No | Department ID | |
| status | No | Status | |
| userid | No | Assign to client ID | |
| subject | No | Subject | |
| priority | No | Priority | |
| ticketid | Yes | Ticket ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update ticket properties', implying a mutation, but fails to explain permissions, reversibility, side effects, or notifications. This is insufficient for an update 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 consists of a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and not verbose. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it could be slightly more descriptive without becoming wordy.
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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or important context such as required permissions or the effect of updating certain fields.
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 provides full coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional semantic value.
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 'Update ticket properties', clearly indicating the verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get tickets. However, it lacks specificity about what properties can be updated, though the input schema covers this.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like whmcs_add_ticket_note or whmcs_add_ticket_reply, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.