MCP Request Tracker CrunchTools

update_ticket_tool

Update a Request Tracker ticket's subject, priority, or queue by specifying its ID. Provide only the fields to change; the rest stay intact.

Instructions

Update ticket fields (subject, priority, queue). All fields are optional.

Args: ticket_id: The ticket ID number subject: New subject/title for the ticket priority: New priority (0-99) queue: New queue name (e.g., 'General', 'Professional')

Returns: Confirmation of updated fields

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`queue`	No
`subject`	No
`priority`	No
`ticket_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / priority / description
```
Removed value: -"New priority (0-99)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / queue / description
```
Removed value: -"New queue name (e.g., 'General', 'Professional')"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / subject / description
```
Removed value: -"New subject/title for the ticket"
```
- 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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that all fields are optional and that the tool returns confirmation of updated fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when no fields are provided beyond ticket_id.

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 and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the core purpose and lists parameters efficiently. Minor redundancy with the schema (e.g., parameter names) but no wasted sentences.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only 4 simple parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like updating only one field, whether empty strings are treated as updates or no-ops, and how it differs from sibling update tools. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain each parameter's purpose (ticket_id, subject, priority, queue) and provides an example for queue. However, it doesn't add details like priority range semantics beyond '0-99' or behavior of empty strings/defaults, which are partially in the schema.

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 updates ticket fields and lists the specific fields (subject, priority, queue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_ticket_status_tool or set_ticket_owner_tool, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage by listing optional fields and noting all fields are optional, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_ticket_status_tool or set_ticket_owner_tool. The context is clear for updating general ticket fields, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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

Deploy Server