get_ticket_toolRetrieve detailed information for a specific Request Tracker ticket by its ID to view its status, content, and metadata.
Get details of a specific 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 that this is a safe read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on permissions, missing-ticket behavior, or what the detail payload includes.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness is also what leaves behavioral and routing gaps.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single param is documented. But given 16 sibling tools including several other ticket-retrieval tools, the description is too thin to help an agent confidently select this one.
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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required ticket_id parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description's phrase 'specific ticket' adds only marginal meaning over the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource (fetch details of a ticket), so the basic operation is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_ticket_history_tool, get_my_open_tickets_tool, or search_tickets_tool, so an agent cannot tell from the text which retrieval tool is appropriate.
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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite a crowded sibling set of retrieval tools (search, history, my-open, new tickets). The agent must infer the correct routing condition on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.