MCP Request Tracker CrunchTools

search_tickets_tool

Search Request Tracker tickets using RT query syntax to find matching tickets by status, subject, owner, or queue.

Instructions

Search for tickets using RT query syntax.

Args: query: RT query string (e.g., "Status = 'new'", "Subject LIKE 'checklist'", "Owner = 'scott'", "Queue = 'Professional'") order_by: Field to order by, prefix with - for descending (default: -Created)

Returns: List of matching tickets with ID and Subject

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`order_by`	No		-Created

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

removedInput schema / properties / order_by / description

Removed value: -"Field to order by, prefix with - for descending (default: -Created)"

removedInput schema / properties / query / description

Removed value: -"RT query string (e.g., \"Status = 'new'\", \"Subject LIKE 'checklist'\",\n   \"Owner = 'scott'\", \"Queue = 'Professional'\")"

addedOutput schema / description

Added value: +"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."

First observedv0.4.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns tickets with ID and Subject, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only (searching implies no mutation), potential rate limits, complexity of query syntax, or error behavior. The description could mention that this is a search/read operation and not 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, uses a clear Args/Returns structure, and front-loads the purpose. It includes useful examples without wasting words. Minor room for improvement: could be even more succinct, but it is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail, but the output schema is not provided in the context. Despite that, the description specifies return fields (ID and Subject). Given the complexity of RT query syntax, the description provides examples but could be more complete by explaining the query syntax structure (e.g., operators, field names) rather than relying on examples. Also, no mention of pagination or limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document the parameters. It does explain the query parameter with examples and order_by with default value. However, it lacks details on the format of order_by values (e.g., valid field names) and does not specify that order_by is optional, though the default indicates it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for tickets using RT query syntax, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_my_open_tickets_tool or get_new_tickets_tool, though the mention of query syntax implies a more flexible search compared to those presets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides examples of queries and explains the order_by parameter, implying usage for flexible searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_my_open_tickets_tool or get_new_tickets_tool, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server