Open a new customer support ticket in Paymenter with a subject, user ID, priority, and status, enabling agents to log and manage billing or technical issues.
Open a new customer support ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Initial status (default open) | |
| subject | Yes | Ticket subject line | |
| user_id | Yes | Author customer user ID | |
| priority | Yes | Ticket priority | |
| department | No | Department name (e.g. Billing, Technical) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Open a new' (implying a write/mutation), but discloses nothing about required permissions, whether user_id must reference an existing customer, what happens on duplicate subject, or side effects such as notifications. For a mutation tool with zero structured behavioral coverage, this is a real gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately scoped, though its terseness is what leaves the behavioral gaps rather than a conciseness problem per se.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do more than one sentence. It omits required-field expectations, the user_id linkage to an existing customer, and any return information, leaving an agent under-informed for a creation call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 five parameters including enum values and the 'default open' default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('customer support ticket'), clearly separating it from siblings like paymenter_get_ticket, paymenter_list_tickets, and paymenter_reply_ticket. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create-vs-read-vs-reply distinction is obvious from the verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. user must already exist), and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and surrounding sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.