Change a ticket's status from new to open, optionally assigning an owner, and receive confirmation.
Open a ticket (change status from new to open), optionally taking ownership.
Args: ticket_id: The ticket ID number owner: Optional username to assign as owner
Returns: Confirmation message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | No | ||
| ticket_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / owner / descriptionRemoved value: -"Optional username to assign as owner"Input 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the main side effects: status change and optional owner assignment, and states that a confirmation message is returned. It does not mention failure conditions, such as attempting to open a ticket not in new status, or whether an existing owner is overwritten.
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 brief, front-loaded, and organized with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the inputs and the core state transition well. It is less complete in the context of many sibling tools that overlap in functionality, leaving the agent to inspect those schemas to decide which tool to use.
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 0%, so the Args block must provide meaning beyond the schema. It adequately explains ticket_id as the ticket ID and owner as an optional username for assignment. It could note the empty-string default behavior, but the schema already exposes that default.
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's action: open a ticket by changing status from new to open, optionally assigning an owner. It is specific about the resource and state transition, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like set_ticket_status_tool or take_ticket_tool.
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?
The phrase 'change status from new to open' implies the tool is intended for tickets currently in the new state. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as set_ticket_status_tool, take_ticket_tool, or set_ticket_owner_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.