Skip to main content
Glama
fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

by fruggr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Add Private Note

add_private_note

Add an internal note (not visible to requester) to a ticket, optionally with file attachments (uploaded via the Zendesk Uploads API and carried on the note).

Instructions

Add an internal note (not visible to requester) to a ticket, optionally with file attachments (uploaded via the Zendesk Uploads API and carried on the note). The note is appended to the ticket thread; use add_public_comment instead when the reply should be visible to the requester.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesNote text (internal, agent-only). Plain text or HTML; not shown to the requester.
ticket_idYesTicket ID — the numeric id of the ticket to annotate. Obtain it from search_tickets or list_tickets.
attachmentsNoFiles to attach to this note (base64-encoded content).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.24.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.22.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / file_base64 / contentEncoding
      Added value: +"base64"
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.20.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / file_base64 / description
      Previous value: -"File content encoded as base64."New value: +"File content encoded as base64. At most 10420224 characters (about 7.45 MB of file), and the attachments of one call must stay under that total; the HTTP transport additionally caps request bodies at 4 MB."
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / items / properties / file_base64 / maxLength
      Added value: +10420224
  5. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"Note content"New value: +"Note text (internal, agent-only). Plain text or HTML; not shown to the requester."
    • changedInput schema / properties / ticket_id / description
      Previous value: -"Ticket ID"New value: +"Ticket ID — the numeric id of the ticket to annotate. Obtain it from search_tickets or list_tickets."
  6. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Files to attach to this note (base64-encoded content).",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "content_type": {
+        "default": "application/octet-stream",
+        "description": "MIME type, e.g. \"text/plain\", \"image/png\", \"application/pdf\".",
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "file_base64": {
+        "description": "File content encoded as base64.",
+        "format": "base64",
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "pattern": "^$|^(?:[0-9a-zA-Z+/]{4})*(?:(?:[0-9a-zA-Z+/]{2}==)|(?:[0-9a-zA-Z+/]{3}=))?$",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "file_name": {
+        "description": "File name, e.g. \"app.log\" or \"screenshot.png\".",
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "file_name",
+      "file_base64"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  7. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  8. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: the note is requester-invisible, it is appended to the ticket thread (implying duplicate notes on repeat calls), and attachments are uploaded via the Zendesk Uploads API and carried on the note. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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, zero filler. The core behavior and the requester-visibility constraint are front-loaded, and the sibling routing is deferred to the second sentence where it belongs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and complete annotations, the description supplies the only missing pieces: requester invisibility, thread-appending behavior, and the attachment pipeline. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains body, ticket_id, attachment structure, base64 encoding and size caps in detail. The description only restates the attachment mechanism ('uploaded via the Zendesk Uploads API'), adding no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (add) plus resource (internal note on a ticket), scopes it precisely as 'not visible to requester', and names the contrasting sibling add_public_comment. An agent can distinguish it from every other ticket-mutating tool in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use add_public_comment instead when the reply should be visible to the requester.' The when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-the-alternative decision is stated outright with no inference required.

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