reply_to_ticket_toolPost a requestor-visible reply to a Request Tracker ticket by supplying its ticket ID and message.
Reply to a ticket (correspondence visible to requestor).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The reply message | |
| 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 / message / descriptionAdded value: +"The reply message"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 / message / descriptionRemoved value: -"The reply message"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 full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — the message is externally visible to the requestor — but says nothing about notification/email side effects, editability, permissions, or irreversibility of a mutation.
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 sentence with the visibility constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
Parameters are well covered and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool, the description omits whether the reply triggers a requestor notification and whether it can be amended — gaps an agent would care about.
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% for both parameters (message, ticket_id), so the schema documents them fully. The description adds no format, length, or ID-resolution guidance beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.
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 (reply) and resource (ticket), plus a scope qualifier — correspondence is visible to the requestor. That qualifier meaningfully separates it from sibling add_ticket_comment_tool, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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 parenthetical implies the public/customer-facing case versus an internal comment, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. An agent must infer that add_ticket_comment_tool covers the private case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.