ticket-precedent
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| similar_ticketsA | Find past tickets similar to |
| precedents_forA | Earlier tickets resembling an indexed ticket, e.g. helpdesk thread 18342 or PROJ-42. |
| get_ticketC | Full indexed text of one ticket: description, comments, links and time spent. |
| list_sourcesC | Indexed sources with ticket and chunk counts and the last sync time. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
similar_tickets and precedents_for both retrieve prior tickets, but the descriptions clearly distinguish free-text search from ticket-key-driven precedent lookup. get_ticket and list_sources are cleanly separate, so agents should usually pick correctly despite the overlap.
The names are readable and all snake_case, but conventions are mixed: get_ticket and list_sources are verb_noun, similar_tickets is adjective_noun, and precedents_for is noun_preposition. There is no single predictable pattern across the four tools.
Four tools is well-scoped for a ticket precedent retrieval server: source discovery, text similarity search, ticket-relative precedent lookup, and full ticket retrieval. Each tool has a clear role and none feels redundant.
The surface covers source discovery, both major search modes, and full ticket retrieval, which is solid for the apparent retrieval-focused domain. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit index refresh/sync operation or project listing, though list_sources partly mitigates this.