List customer support tickets with filters to manage inquiries by status, priority, user, or department.
List customer support tickets with filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| include | No | Relations (messages, user, assigned_to) | |
| user_id | No | Filter by user ID | |
| per_page | No | Items per page | |
| priority | No | Filter by priority | |
| department | No | Filter by department |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, whether include relations affect performance, or what the response contains beyond the filters.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though slightly vague because 'with filters' is not expanded.
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?
For an eight-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits usage context, pagination guidance, and return-shape expectations that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific detail. The schema already documents each filter, enum, and pagination field, and the description only repeats that filters exist.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List customer support tickets.' It also mentions filtering, which clarifies scope. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling alternatives such as paymenter_get_ticket or paymenter_search.
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 phrase 'with filters' implies that this tool is for retrieving multiple tickets by criteria, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of paymenter_get_ticket or paymenter_search. It also provides no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.