Creates a new OTRS ticket with a required title and body, enabling optional queue, state, priority, type, and customer user details to be set at submission.
Create a new ticket in OTRS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| queue | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| priority | No | ||
| ticket_type | No | ||
| customer_user | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only names the action without noting that a persistent OTRS record is created, whether calls are idempotent, whether authentication is required, or what errors may occur.
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 7-word sentence with zero filler and the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine explanatory economy.
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?
A 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions needs far more than a purpose statement; the description omits the required title/body contract and how optional fields are validated. The presence of an output schema covers return values, which keeps this from a 1, but an agent still lacks essential calling context.
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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it names no parameters at all. An agent is left with bare parameter names (body, queue, state, priority, ticket_type, customer_user) plus title, with no format, allowable-value, or domain guidance.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a new ticket in OTRS'), and the word 'new' cleanly separates it from the update_ticket sibling. It is accurate and unambiguous, though it adds only the 'in OTRS' context beyond what the tool name already communicates.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_ticket, search_tickets, or update_ticket. No prerequisites, ordering constraints, or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned; usage context must be entirely inferred from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.