Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NinjaOne MCP

NinjaOne MCP

by cyberkoder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_ticket

Log a new ticket in NinjaOne by specifying summary, description, type, severity, priority, and status. Supports incidents, problems, change and service requests.

Instructions

Create a new NinjaOne ticket. Requires write auth (refresh token or session key).

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": {
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "create_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
statusNoStatus name: NEW, OPEN, WAITING, PAUSED, RESOLVED (default NEW)
summaryYesTicket subject
clientIdNoOrganization ID (use list_organizations). Omit to use the default org.
priorityNo
severityNo
descriptionNoTicket body text
ticketFormIdNoForm ID (default 1)
assignedAppUserIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states 'Requires write auth' but fails to mention return value, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary content, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and a creation action, the description is too brief. It omits success conditions, return value, and any special behavior, leaving the agent underinformed for reliable invocation.

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 56%, meaning several parameters lack schema descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the auth note, failing to compensate for the gap or clarify parameter interplay.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new NinjaOne ticket'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_ticket, get_ticket, and search_tickets.

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 mentions an auth requirement but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ticket, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent lacks context for optimal selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools