open_ticket_toolOpens a ticket by moving it from new to open status and optionally assigns an owner to begin handling the request.
Open a ticket (change status from new to open), optionally taking ownership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | No | Optional username to assign as owner | |
| 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 / owner / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional username to assign as owner"Input 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 / 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 exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the underlying state machine (new -> open) and that ownership assignment is optional, which is real behavior beyond the schema. But it omits what happens if the ticket is not in 'new' state, permission requirements, and whether the change is reversible.
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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the clarifying state transition in parentheses; every clause earns its place and nothing is wasted.
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 no explanation, and the two-parameter surface is simple. Still, as an unannotated mutation tool it lacks preconditions and failure modes (e.g., ticket already open), leaving the agent to discover the state-machine contract by trial.
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%, so both parameters (ticket_id, owner) are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that owner is optional but adds no format, defaulting, or side-effect detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Open a ticket') and clarifies the exact state transition involved ('change status from new to open'), which is more precise than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like set_ticket_status_tool (which can likely also set status to open) or take_ticket_tool, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.
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 and no exclusions are given. With three overlapping siblings (set_ticket_status_tool, take_ticket_tool, set_ticket_owner_tool), the description leaves the agent to guess which tool owns this transition, especially since 'optionally taking ownership' overlaps take_ticket_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.