Fetch complete details for any Request Tracker ticket by ID, including status, owner, subject, and timestamps. Resolves the need for quick ticket information access.
Get details of a specific ticket.
Args: ticket_id: The ticket ID number
Returns: Ticket details including status, owner, subject, times, etc.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup and lists returned fields such as status, owner, subject, and times, but it does not describe not-found behavior, authorization requirements, or error conditions. The behavior is not misleading, just incomplete.
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 and well-organized into purpose, args, and returns sections. The main purpose appears first, and there is no wasted text, though the 'etc.' in the Returns section is slightly vague.
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?
Given one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient for a straightforward get-by-id call. It could improve by noting that it is not the tool for searching or viewing history, but it is otherwise complete for basic invocation.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It says 'ticket_id: The ticket ID number,' which confirms the integer is a ticket identifier; this is minimal but adequate for a single-parameter tool.
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 'Get details of a specific ticket' and identifies the key input as ticket_id. It is distinct from broad search/list tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_ticket_history_tool or other detail-focused siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is only implied by 'specific ticket' and the required ticket_id, with no mention of related tools such as search_tickets_tool, get_my_open_tickets_tool, or get_ticket_history_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.