mcp-otobo

get_ticket

Retrieve full ticket details by TicketID, including communication history and dynamic fields.

Instructions

Get full ticket details by TicketID, including articles (communication history) and dynamic fields

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": "get_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`extended`	No	Include extended information (default: false)
`ticket_id`	Yes	The Otobo ticket ID
`include_articles`	No	Include all articles/messages (default: true)
`include_dynamic_fields`	No	Include dynamic fields (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, or mention any rate limits, authorization needs, or side effects.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks details on return structure or error handling. No output schema exists, so additional context about the response would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description mentions articles and dynamic fields, which aligns with parameters, but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves full ticket details by TicketID, including articles and dynamic fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tickets and get_ticket_history by specifying the scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticket_history or search_tickets. The description does not provide usage context or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server