vapi-mcp-server

vapi_create_support_ticket

Create a support ticket for Vapi Voice AI platform issues by submitting a subject and description.

Instructions

File a support ticket with Vapi

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "vapi_create_support_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subject`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`priority`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description only says 'File a support ticket', implying creation but offering no details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what constitutes a support ticket. For a creation tool, 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, achieving high conciseness. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it borderline under-specified. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place by missing critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has three parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain what the fields mean, how priority works, or what the outcome of filing a ticket is. For its complexity level, it is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema properties have no descriptions. The tool description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (subject, description, priority). It adds no semantic value beyond the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'File a support ticket with Vapi' clearly identifies the action (file) and resource (support ticket). It distinguishes from sibling tools, as none of the 30+ sibling tools appear to handle support tickets. However, it is vague and lacks specificity about the scope or context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions. Sibling tools exist for many other Vapi operations, but no comparison or exclusion is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.