Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-movidesk

mcp-movidesk

by ferronicardoso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_ticket

Creates a new ticket in Movidesk, supporting fields such as type, subject, category, urgency, status, clients, and actions for internal notes or public replies.

Instructions

Cria um novo ticket no Movidesk (POST /tickets). Aceita os campos do ticket conforme o layout da API (type, subject, category, urgency, status, clients, actions, etc.). O campo actions permite registrar a descrição inicial (type=1 nota interna, type=2 resposta pública).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "create_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesTipo do ticket
subjectYesAssunto do ticket

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the HTTP method and field types but omits success/failure behavior, return value, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no extraneous text. The action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the field examples are relevant. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned upon creation. It does not. However, the context of sibling tools and the REST endpoint partially compensate. The description is adequate for a simple creation tool but lacks completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the two required parameters. The description adds value by mentioning the optional 'actions' field and its subtypes, but does not enhance meaning for the parameters already documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it creates a new ticket in Movidesk using POST /tickets. It lists accepted fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_person or get_ticket.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 alternatives like update_ticket. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb 'create'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools