zendesk_get_ticket
Retrieve a Zendesk ticket by its unique ID to view its details and current status.
Instructions
Get a Zendesk ticket by ID
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | The ID of the ticket to retrieve |
Retrieve a Zendesk ticket by its unique ID to view its details and current status.
Get a Zendesk ticket by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | The ID of the ticket to retrieve |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states the basic function without mentioning any behavioral traits like return format, required permissions, or rate limits.
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 extremely concise: 'Get a Zendesk ticket by ID' is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or details.
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 a simple retrieval tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the response structure, which is not covered by an output schema, and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools.
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?
The input schema has only one parameter with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (a Zendesk ticket by ID). However, among many sibling tools like 'get_ticket_details', 'get_ticket_audits', it does not differentiate what this specific tool returns versus those.
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 over alternatives like 'get_ticket_details' or 'get_ticket_metrics'. The context of use is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/famousdrew/zd-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server