mcp-otobo

add_note

Add an internal note to a ticket without altering its state. Use this to document internal observations or communications without triggering state changes.

Instructions

Add an internal note to a ticket without changing its state

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Note body text
`subject`	No	Note subject (default: 'Note')
`ticket_id`	Yes	The Otobo ticket ID
`content_type`	No	Content type (default: 'text/plain; charset=utf-8')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (no state change) but omits other important aspects such as authentication requirements, visibility of the note, or whether it triggers notifications. It is minimally adequate.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the essential purpose without filler. Every word adds value.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete but fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, note ID). This is a notable gap.

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% so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 ('add an internal note') and the resource ('ticket'), with the important qualifier 'without changing its state'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_ticket or update_ticket that do change the ticket state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you want to add a note without altering ticket state), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. It is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

Deploy Server