MCP Request Tracker CrunchTools

create_ticket_tool

Create a new support ticket in Request Tracker by specifying queue, subject, and optional details like text, requestor, owner, and priority to receive a ticket ID.

Instructions

Create a new ticket.

Args: queue: Queue name (e.g., 'General', 'Professional') subject: Ticket subject/title text: Initial ticket content/description requestor: Email of the requestor owner: Username to assign as owner priority: Ticket priority (0-99)

Returns: Created ticket ID and confirmation

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	No
`owner`	No
`queue`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`priority`	No
`requestor`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / owner / description
```
Removed value: -"Username to assign as owner"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / priority / description
```
Removed value: -"Ticket priority (0-99)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / queue / description
```
Removed value: -"Queue name (e.g., 'General', 'Professional')"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / requestor / description
```
Removed value: -"Email of the requestor"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / subject / description
```
Removed value: -"Ticket subject/title"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / text / description
```
Removed value: -"Initial ticket content/description"
```
- addedOutput schema / description
```
Added value: +"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
```
First observedv0.4.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the primary side effect ('Create a new ticket') and return value ('Created ticket ID and confirmation'), but does not disclose prerequisites, permission requirements, or whether the action triggers side effects such as notifications or auto-assignment.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into Args and Returns sections. Every line adds information and there is no irrelevant prose.

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 description covers all six parameters and the return value, which is sufficient to invoke the tool. It does not mention which parameters are optional, but the schema already provides defaults and required fields, so the agent has the needed context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining every parameter. It adds useful semantics beyond the property names: requestor is an email, owner is a username, priority has a 0-99 range, and text is the initial ticket content. It stops short of providing examples or allowed queue values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new ticket.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools that search, read, update, or resolve existing tickets. The word 'new' removes ambiguity with open_ticket_tool.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a brand-new ticket must be created. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the creation intent is unambiguous given the sibling tools are read/update/resolve operations.

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

Deploy Server