Assign or take a ticket by setting its owner with the ticket ID and new owner's username.
Set the owner of a ticket (take/assign ticket).
Args: ticket_id: The ticket ID number owner: Username of the new owner
Returns: Confirmation message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| 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: -"Username of the new 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 must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation and a return message, but does not mention whether the existing owner is overwritten, whether special permissions are required, or whether any side effects or restrictions apply. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral detail.
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 concise and well-structured with a one-line purpose, labeled Args, and Returns. Every line contributes useful information and there is 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 with an output schema, the description covers the essential operation, both parameters, and the return type. It lacks usage differentiation and some behavioral caveats, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly in straightforward cases.
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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics to both parameters: ticket_id is identified as the ticket ID number and owner as the username of the new owner. This compensates for the bare schema, although it could add more detail about where to find the ticket ID or format requirements for the username.
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 identifies the action ('Set the owner of a ticket') and the resource (ticket), and even clarifies by saying 'take/assign ticket'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool take_ticket_tool, which appears to serve a very similar purpose.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as take_ticket_tool, set_ticket_status_tool, or update_ticket_tool. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues for an agent to choose this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.