get_ticket_history_toolRetrieve a Request Tracker ticket's history and changelog by ticket ID to review updates, status changes, and audit activity.
Get the history/changelog of a ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 / 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 / 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?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds only the clarification that the payload is a history/changelog rather than current state; it says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination, but the output schema covers the return shape.
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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of omitting any routing or scoping detail.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and a full output schema, the description covers the essential contract. The only real omission is how this differs from get_ticket_tool, which is a minor gap given the rich structured metadata.
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% and the single ticket_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description neither needs to nor does add syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (history/changelog of a ticket), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_ticket_tool, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling get_ticket_tool as the alternative for current (non-historical) data. The agent can infer that this is for changelog retrieval, but nothing in the text routes it among the 17 sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.