Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-otobo

mcp-otobo

by domnussbaum
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

close_ticket

Close a ticket with a specified state and optional note. Use 'closed successful' for resolved issues or 'closed unsuccessful' for unresolved.

Instructions

Close a ticket by setting its state to 'closed successful' and optionally adding a closing note

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>"
    },
    "name": "close_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional closing note/reason
stateNoClose state (default: 'closed successful'). Use 'closed unsuccessful' for unresolved tickets.
ticket_idYesThe Otobo ticket ID to close

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses only the basic action (state change and note addition) but does not address side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. Since no annotations exist, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for the agent.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing clarity.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the behavior when the note parameter is omitted, leaving important context missing.

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?

The input schema already provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), including the state parameter's default and alternative values. The description adds minimal new information beyond restating schema content, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: closing a ticket by setting its state to 'closed successful' and optionally adding a note. It is specific about the action and outcome, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_ticket', which could also modify the state.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_ticket' or 'add_note'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone, increasing the risk of incorrect tool 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