MCP Request Tracker CrunchTools

Create Ticket Tool

create_ticket_tool

Create a new ticket in Request Tracker with queue, subject, requestor, owner, priority, and initial details to log and assign support requests.

Instructions

Create a new ticket.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Initial ticket content/description
`owner`	No	Username to assign as owner
`queue`	Yes	Queue name (e.g., 'General', 'Professional')
`subject`	Yes	Ticket subject/title
`priority`	No	Ticket priority (0-99)
`requestor`	No	Email of the requestor

Output Schema

TableJSON 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 / owner / description
```
Added value: +"Username to assign as owner"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / priority / description
```
Added value: +"Ticket priority (0-99)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / queue / description
```
Added value: +"Queue name (e.g., 'General', 'Professional')"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / requestor / description
```
Added value: +"Email of the requestor"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / subject / description
```
Added value: +"Ticket subject/title"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / text / description
```
Added value: +"Initial ticket content/description"
```
- removedOutput schema / description
```
Removed value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."
```
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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., notifications sent, ticket ID returned, default status), permissions required, or what happens on duplicate creation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single four-word sentence, which is concise but arguably under-specified for a creation tool. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. No structure issues, but minimal content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema is mentioned (though context says it exists), and the description is minimal, it is incomplete. It fails to mention required parameters, side effects, or return behavior. For a mutation tool in a rich sibling environment, more context is needed.

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 six parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable per the baseline rule when coverage is high. A 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new ticket' states a clear verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like update_ticket_tool or open_ticket_tool beyond the obvious 'create' action. Still, the core purpose is identifiable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., queue must exist), when to prefer update_ticket_tool, or any context about the creation workflow. The agent is left to infer everything.

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

Deploy Server