Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ticksy-mcp

ticksy-mcp

by artkrsk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

reply_to_ticket

Post a public reply to a customer's support ticket. Optionally create a private staff-only note.

Instructions

Post a public reply visible to the customer.

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": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentYesReply body (HTML is accepted)
privateNoIf true, the reply is visible only to staff
ticket_idYesThe Ticksy ticket ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description correctly implies mutation. No additional behavioral details are disclosed, such as effects on ticket status or notifications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with key action and visibility constraint.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Could briefly mention the mutation effect, but annotations cover that.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description's mention of 'public' reinforces the default for the 'private' parameter but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Post a public reply visible to the customer' uses a specific verb (reply) and resource (ticket), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_ticket_note' which are private.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes 'add_ticket_note' for private notes, implying usage context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools