MCP Request Tracker CrunchTools

Search Tickets Tool

search_tickets_tool

Read-only

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

Instructions

Search for tickets using RT query syntax.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	RT query string (e.g., "Status = 'new'", "Subject LIKE 'checklist'", "Owner = 'scott'", "Queue = 'Professional'")
`order_by`	No	Field to order by, prefix with - for descending (default: -Created)	-Created

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / order_by / description

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

addedInput schema / properties / query / description

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

removedOutput schema / description

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

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context at all — nothing about result limits, pagination, whether the query must be valid RT syntax or how failures are surfaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the annotation covers safety. Still, for a query-driven search tool in a crowded sibling set, the absence of any scoping, limit, or alternative-tool information leaves a real gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented inline with concrete RT examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only names the dialect ('RT query syntax'), which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (tickets) plus the query dialect, so the agent knows this is a free-form query tool over the ticket collection. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_new_tickets_tool or get_my_open_tickets_tool, which also retrieve tickets, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternative. With 17 siblings including several prefixed 'get_*' ticket retrievers, the agent gets no signal about when a raw RT query is preferable to the specialized convenience tools.

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

Deploy Server