Skip to main content
Glama
codeyoc

RepairDesk MCP Server

by codeyoc

repairdesk_tickets_write

Manage repair tickets: create new tickets, update details, add notes, and assign technicians, with explicit confirmation required for status changes that notify customers.

Instructions

Create/update tickets, add notes, assign techs. WARNING: Status changes may trigger automatic customer SMS/email! Statuses that notify: Repaired, Ready for Pickup, Completed, Waiting on Customer, Waiting For Quote, Cancelled. ALWAYS confirm with user before status changes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoNote text (for add_note)
actionYes
statusNoTicket status — MAY TRIGGER NOTIFICATION
confirmedNoMust be true for status changes
device_idNoDevice type ID (for create)
note_typeNointernal or diagnosticinternal
ticket_idNoTicket ID (for update/add_note/assign)
service_idNoService/repair item ID
customer_idNoCustomer ID (for create)
device_nameNoDevice name/model
service_nameNoService name
security_codeNoDevice PIN/password
serial_numberNo
technician_idNoEmployee ID (for assign)
additional_notesNoInternal notes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the major side effect: status changes may trigger automatic customer SMS/email and lists the specific statuses that notify. It also mandates confirmation. This covers the primary behavioral risk, though it does not mention authentication or rate limits, which is acceptable for this context.

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?

The description is concise and effective: a single sentence states the purpose, then a warning in caps draws attention to the critical side effect and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, and the critical warning is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is complex with 15 parameters and multiple actions, but the schema provides detailed per-parameter descriptions and the action enum clarifies usage. The description covers the essential context: what the tool does and the notification risk. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly with the schema's help.

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 87%, so the schema already explains most parameters well (e.g., note, ticket_id, customer_id). The description's warning about status notifications adds context to the status parameter, but the schema already includes 'MAY TRIGGER NOTIFICATION'. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema; it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's actions: create/update tickets, add notes, assign techs. It names the specific resource (tickets) and verb, distinguishing it from the read-focused sibling repairdesk_tickets. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

The description includes explicit guidance to always confirm with the user before status changes, which is critical for safe usage. It implies this is the write tool vs. the read tool repairdesk_tickets, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The confirmation requirement is a clear usage rule.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/codeyoc/repairdesk-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server