Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ticket-precedent

ticket-precedent

by bondie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

precedents_for

Read-only

Find earlier tickets that resemble a named ticket to uncover past problems and resolutions. Use it when a user references a specific ticket, and limit results by source when needed.

Instructions

Earlier tickets resembling an indexed ticket, e.g. helpdesk thread 18342 or PROJ-42.

    Prefer this to similar_tickets whenever the user names a ticket. The ticket's title and
    description are the query, and only tickets created before it are returned, without
    the ticket itself and tickets its title names. Pass `source` only when the key exists
    in several sources; `only_source` restricts the results to one source.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
limitNo
sourceNo
only_sourceNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the read-only annotations: the ticket title and description form the query, only earlier-created tickets are returned, and the ticket itself plus title-named tickets are excluded. The phrase 'tickets its title names' is slightly ambiguous, but the core non-obvious constraints are disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded, appropriately sized, and every sentence contributes useful routing or behavioral information. The exclusion phrase is a bit densely worded, but there is no filler.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the core retrieval semantics and sibling routing well. The main missing piece is limit behavior, which should be clarified because the schema provides no description for it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It explains key, source, and only_source well, but omits any explanation of limit, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific action: find earlier tickets resembling a given indexed ticket, with examples like helpdesk thread 18342 or PROJ-42. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling similar_tickets, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit routing guidance: prefer this to similar_tickets whenever the user names a ticket. It also explains when to pass source versus only_source, leaving little ambiguity about usage conditions.

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