Find OTRS tickets by queue, state, priority, customer, or title. Filter and sort results to locate specific support requests quickly.
Search for tickets in OTRS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| queue | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| sort_by | No | Age | |
| order_by | No | Down | |
| priority | No | ||
| customer_id | 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 exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it reveals nothing about match semantics, how filters combine, the default sort (Age/Down), or limit/pagination behavior. The output schema helps with return shape but not with behavioral traits an agent needs to predict the tool's effect.
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 single sentence is lean and front-loaded with the core action, but for a tool with 9 optional parameters, this brevity is under-specification rather than efficient structure. There are no wasted words, yet no additional context is packed into the available space.
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?
Given moderate complexity (9 optional filters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is far too thin to support correct invocation. An agent would not know how filters behave, what values queue/state accept, or how sorting works; the output schema covers only what is returned, not how to call the tool properly.
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 9 parameters, and the description does nothing to compensate. It never mentions the filter parameters, does not explain valid values for sort_by/order_by, and does not clarify the distinction between customer_id and customer_user, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning.
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 ('Search') and resource ('tickets in OTRS'), clearly identifying the tool's core action. The sibling tools use distinct verbs (create, get, update, get_history), so search is implicitly differentiated as the query-multiple-tickets operation, though no explicit contrast is given.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer that get_ticket retrieves a single ticket while search_tickets finds tickets by criteria, but nothing states this, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.