getOpenTicketsRetrieve unresolved support tickets for a customer to assess account risk and identify reasons they may be unhappy or withholding payment.
Returns unresolved support tickets for one customer. Use this when assessing account risk or when a question asks why a customer might be unhappy or withholding payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer | Yes | Customer name or numeric ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does add real signal by scoping results to 'unresolved' tickets, meaning resolved ones are excluded, but says nothing about volume, ordering, or what happens for an unknown customer.
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, with the resource and scope front-loaded before the usage advice. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs to decide and invoke. The only minor gap is that 'unresolved' is never pinned to a status definition and the zero-results case is unaddressed.
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 100%, and the schema already documents the single 'customer' parameter as a name or numeric ID. The description only reinforces the single-customer scope, adding no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns unresolved support tickets') with an explicit scope of 'one customer', which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from invoice- and payment-oriented siblings. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Gives concrete triggering conditions ('assessing account risk', 'why a customer might be unhappy or withholding payment'), which is stronger than implied usage. It offers no when-not-to-use guidance and doesn't name the alternative tools for related questions, so it is not a full routing instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.