MCP Request Tracker CrunchTools

Complete Weekly Checklist Tool

complete_weekly_checklist_tool

Complete a weekly checklist ticket by taking ownership, recording results, logging time, commenting, and resolving it in Request Tracker.

Instructions

Complete a weekly checklist ticket with results.

This is a workflow shortcut that:

Takes ownership of the ticket
Opens the ticket
Adds correspondence with checklist results
Adds time worked (if specified)
Adds a "Completed" comment
Resolves the ticket

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "checklist_results": "<checklist_results>"
    },
    "name": "complete_weekly_checklist_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`owner`	Yes	Username taking the ticket
`ticket_id`	Yes	The ticket ID number
`time_minutes`	No	Time spent on checklist (optional)
`checklist_results`	Yes	The checklist completion results

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / checklist_results / description
```
Added value: +"The checklist completion results"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / owner / description
```
Added value: +"Username taking the ticket"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ticket_id / description
```
Added value: +"The ticket ID number"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ticket_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / time_minutes / description
```
Added value: +"Time spent on checklist (optional)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / time_minutes / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- removedOutput schema / description
```
Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
```
Changed6 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / checklist_results / description
```
Removed value: -"The checklist completion results"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / owner / description
```
Removed value: -"Username taking the ticket"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / ticket_id / description
```
Removed value: -"The ticket ID number"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / time_minutes / description
```
Removed value: -"Time spent on checklist (optional)"
```
- addedOutput schema / description
```
Added value: +"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
```
First observedv0.4.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well by disclosing every state change in order: ownership transfer, opening, correspondence, time entry, comment, and resolution. It stops short of stating permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens if a mid-sequence step fails.

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?

One summary sentence followed by a tight numbered list; the composite nature is front-loaded and every line maps to a real side effect. 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?

For a multi-step mutating shortcut, the description fully enumerates the sequence, and the existing output schema covers return values. The remaining gap is partial-failure behavior across six non-atomic steps, which an agent would want to know.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description only loosely ties inputs to steps ('results', 'time worked (if specified)'), adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Complete a weekly checklist ticket with results') and then enumerates the exact six-step effect. It is immediately distinguishable from the many atomic siblings (take_ticket_tool, resolve_ticket_tool) because it declares itself a composite shortcut.

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 phrase 'This is a workflow shortcut' signals when to reach for it — when the whole sequence is wanted rather than individual steps. It never explicitly names the alternative atomic tools or states a when-not condition, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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

Deploy Server