MCP Request Tracker CrunchTools

Set Ticket Status Tool

set_ticket_status_tool

Change a ticket's status in Request Tracker to new, open, stalled, resolved, rejected, or deleted by providing its ID and desired status.

Instructions

Set the status of a ticket.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "set_ticket_status_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	New status (e.g., 'new', 'open', 'stalled', 'resolved', 'rejected', 'deleted')
`ticket_id`	Yes	The ticket ID number

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / status / description
```
Added value: +"New status (e.g., 'new', 'open', 'stalled', 'resolved', 'rejected', 'deleted')"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ticket_id / description
```
Added value: +"The ticket ID number"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ticket_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- 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 / status / description

Removed value: -"New status (e.g., 'new', 'open', 'stalled', 'resolved', 'rejected', 'deleted')"

removedInput schema / properties / ticket_id / description
```
Removed value: -"The ticket ID number"
```

addedOutput schema / description

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

First observedv0.4.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether the change is destructive/reversible, what side effects occur (notifications, reopening resolved tickets, audit entries), or what permissions are required for a mutation with enumerated lifecycle states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity here comes at the cost of routing and behavioral information an agent needs.

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

Completeness2/5

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 not be explained. But for a status-mutating tool with no annotations and heavy sibling overlap, the description omits the crucial distinction of when this generic setter is correct versus the specialized resolve/open/take tools.

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 the schema documents both ticket_id and the enumerated status values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('set the status of a ticket'), so the agent knows what the tool does. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that likely also change status (resolve_ticket_tool, open_ticket_tool, take_ticket_tool), which is the main risk here.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives, despite several sibling tools (resolve_ticket_tool, open_ticket_tool, take_ticket_tool) that plausibly overlap with generic status setting. The agent must guess which tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server