my_ticketsList tickets assigned to you across projects, with recently updated items first and open tickets shown by default; optionally include Done and Rejected tickets.
Tickets assigned to the token owner across their projects, most recently updated first. Open ones only unless include_done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| include_done | No | Also list Done and Rejected tickets. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: implicit owner-scoping, the default open-only filter, and most-recently-updated ordering. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens at the limit boundary.
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, zero filler, with scope and ordering front-loaded before the filter caveat. Every clause carries information.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, default filtering, and sort order. The only meaningful omission is limit/pagination behavior, which leaves some ambiguity about result-window semantics.
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 coverage is 50%: include_done is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces its effect on the default filter. The limit parameter has no description in either place, so the agent learns nothing about it (max 50, default 20) from 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 states a specific resource (tickets) with clear scope (assigned to the token owner, across their projects) and ordering. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like search_tickets or list_projects, though it never names the alternative 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?
'Open ones only unless include_done' implies the default usage context, and 'assigned to the token owner' narrows the use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over search_tickets or get_ticket, so the agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.