simple-support-system-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update comment

update_comment

Idempotent

Replace the text of an existing support ticket comment and notify involved people. Closed or invalid tickets are locked by the API and reject edits.

Instructions

Replace the text of an existing comment and notify the people involved. Tickets in the states closed or invalid are locked by the API and reject edits.

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": {
      "ticketId": "<ticketId>",
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	New comment text.
`ticketId`	Yes	Ticket the comment belongs to.
`commentId`	Yes	Comment to update.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses a real side effect — notifying people involved — and a state-based failure condition (locked tickets). That is meaningful behavioral context the structured fields do not carry, though nothing is said about permissions or depth of notification.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the failure caveat second. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, side effect and blocking condition. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so ticketId, commentId and content are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Replace the text of an existing comment'), which cleanly separates it from delete_comment and reply_to_ticket by the verb alone. It does not explicitly call out a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete usage constraint: tickets in 'closed' or 'invalid' states are locked and reject edits. That tells the agent when the call will fail, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as reply_to_ticket.

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