list_ticket_activitiesRetrieve a ticket's audit trail to track field changes, assignments, and status updates, helping verify ticket history and troubleshoot issues.
List the audit trail of a ticket (field changes, assignments, status changes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | Ticket ID (the number shown as #INC-123 / #SR-123) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds a useful content disclosure (what the audit trail contains) but says nothing about volume, ordering, or whether the result set is paginated/truncated — a meaningful omission for an audit-trail listing that could be very large.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the content scope in parentheses. No filler, nothing to trim.
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?
Output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only residual gap is behavioral detail about result size/ordering, which is minor for a one-parameter read tool.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that ticket_id is the number shown as #INC-123 / #SR-123. The description adds no extra semantics about the identifier, so the documented baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('audit trail of a ticket') with a clarifying parenthetical naming the event types returned (field changes, assignments, status changes). That scope cleanly separates it from conversation, time-entry, and field-metadata siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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 only implied by the resource name — an agent can infer 'call this when you need the change history of a specific ticket' — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as list_all_ticket_conversation for comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.