Fetch the full changelog for a ticket, showing every modification made to it.
Get the history/changelog of a ticket.
Args: ticket_id: The ticket ID number
Returns: Transaction history showing all changes made to the ticket
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose read-only nature and specifics of the history. It only says 'Returns: Transaction history showing all changes' without clarifying if it's read-only, what changes are included, or any auth requirements.
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?
The description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, args, returns. No unnecessary content.
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?
While the output schema covers return format, the description lacks usage context, behavioral details, and fails to differentiate from siblings. For a simple get operation, it's minimal but not fully complete.
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?
The description adds 'The ticket ID number' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's integer type. However, it doesn't provide additional context like how to obtain the ID or any formatting expectations.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a ticket's history/changelog, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket_tool which fetches current ticket details.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_ticket_tool or search_tickets_tool. The description only states what it does, not when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.