NinjaOne MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_ticket

Update an existing NinjaOne ticket by modifying its status, priority, severity, summary, or assignee. Requires write authentication.

Instructions

Update an existing 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": {
      "ticketId": "<ticketId>"
    },
    "name": "update_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Status name: NEW, OPEN, WAITING, PAUSED, RESOLVED
`summary`	No
`priority`	No
`severity`	No
`ticketId`	Yes
`assignedAppUserId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With zero annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only notes that write authentication is required, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., notification triggers, idempotency, error behavior on missing ticket). The statement 'Update an existing...' implies modification but provides no safety or mutation details.

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—one sentence plus an auth note—with no redundant information. It is efficiently structured, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error states, parameter constraints, and interaction with siblings like 'get_ticket'. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 only 17% (only 'status' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter semantics—it does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema. For a 6-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing NinjaOne ticket'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_ticket' (create) and 'get_ticket' (read). However, it does not specify the scope of updates (e.g., which fields) beyond what the schema implies.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_ticket' or 'add_comment'. It only mentions authentication requirements, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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

Deploy Server