Skip to main content
Glama
forterro

freshservice-mcp

by forterro

manage_ticket

Unify ticket operations in Freshservice: create, update, delete, get, list, filter, and manage ticket fields. Handle priorities, statuses, custom data, and requester information.

Instructions

Unified ticket operations.

    Args:
        action: One of 'create', 'update', 'delete', 'get', 'list', 'filter', 'get_fields'
        ticket_id: Required for get, update, delete
        subject: Ticket subject (create)
        description: Ticket body — HTML (create)
        source: Source enum (1=Email,2=Portal,3=Phone…) (create)
        priority: 1=Low,2=Medium,3=High,4=Urgent (create/update)
        status: 2=Open,3=Pending,4=Resolved,5=Closed (create/update)
        email: Requester email (create — required if no requester_id)
        requester_id: Requester ID (create — required if no email)
        custom_fields: Key-value custom field pairs
        ticket_fields: Dict of fields to update (update action)
        query: Filter query string, e.g. "priority:3 AND status:2" (filter)
        page: Page number (list/filter)
        per_page: Items per page 1-100 (list)
        workspace_id: Workspace filter (filter)
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
emailNo
queryNo
actionYes
sourceNo
statusNo
subjectNo
per_pageNo
priorityNo
ticket_idNo
descriptionNo
requester_idNo
workspace_idNo
custom_fieldsNo
ticket_fieldsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., delete permanence, update semantics), permissions required, or rate limits. It only covers parameter constraints, not the operational behavior or consequences of invoking the tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single block with a tagline and a long Args list. It is appropriately sized for a 15-parameter tool, but the lack of separation between the high-level purpose and parameter details makes it slightly unstructured. The 'Unified ticket operations' tagline is concise but adds little semantic weight.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers most parameter semantics and conditional requirements, which is crucial given zero schema descriptions. However, it does not explain the distinction between 'get_fields' and 'list'/'filter', nor does it address error conditions or permission requirements. The presence of an output schema offloads return value documentation, reducing the gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's detailed parameter documentation is essential. It provides action-specific meaning for each parameter (e.g., 'email: required if no requester_id'), enum values for priority/status/source, and example query syntax. This goes far beyond the bare schema, which has empty descriptions and no enum information.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description opens with 'Unified ticket operations' which is vague as a verb phrase, but the Args list enumerates specific actions (create, update, delete, get, list, filter, get_fields) that clarify the tool's scope. It does not explicitly state it's for managing tickets, though the resource is implied. Sibling tool names like manage_ticket_conversation help differentiate, but the description itself lacks a crisp verb+resource formulation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage through the action list (e.g., use for ticket create/update/delete/get/list/filter), but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The sibling tools suggest this is for tickets, but there is no comparison or guidance on selecting among them.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/forterro/freshservice_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server