add_ticket_comment_toolAdd a private comment or note to a ticket to document internal updates without notifying the requestor.
Add a private comment/note to a ticket (not visible to requestor).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | Yes | The comment text | |
| ticket_id | Yes | The ticket ID number |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / comment / descriptionAdded value: +"The comment text"Input schema / properties / ticket_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The ticket ID number"Input schema / properties / ticket_id / minimumAdded value: +1Output schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / comment / descriptionRemoved value: -"The comment text"Input schema / properties / ticket_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"The ticket ID number"Output schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the visibility constraint (the requestor never sees the comment). However it says nothing about permissions required, whether editing or deletion is possible afterward, whether notifications are triggered, or the mutation's permanence.
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?
A single sentence with zero padding, and the most decision-relevant detail (privacy) is placed immediately in the parenthetical.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-parameter append. The only real gap is disambiguation from reply_to_ticket_tool, which the description does not address.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both ticket_id and comment are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond that, so the 3 baseline 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?
Names a specific verb (add) and resource (comment/note on a ticket), and the parenthetical '(not visible to requestor)' implicitly separates it from reply_to_ticket_tool. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent still has to infer the routing rather than being told.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and the closest alternative (reply_to_ticket_tool) is never mentioned. Usage is only implied by the word 'private' — an agent can infer this is for internal notes, but the guidance is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.