Skip to main content
Glama
fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

by fruggr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Linked Incidents

get_linked_incidents
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch all incident tickets linked to a problem ticket. Use this to gauge a problem's blast radius before resolving it.

Instructions

Get all incident tickets linked to a problem ticket. Returns the list of incidents that reference the given problem (Zendesk problem/incident relationship); useful to gauge a problem's blast radius before resolving it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
problem_idYesProblem ticket ID — the numeric id of the ticket of type "problem" whose linked incidents to list. Obtain it from search_tickets or list_tickets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / problem_id / description
      Previous value: -"Problem ticket ID"New value: +"Problem ticket ID — the numeric id of the ticket of type \"problem\" whose linked incidents to list. Obtain it from search_tickets or list_tickets."
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  4. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful semantics about what is returned (incidents referencing the given problem) and the underlying Zendesk relationship model, but nothing on auth, scoping, or result limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the rationale trailing it. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical restatement of the relationship is slightly redundant with the opening clause.

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?

One required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, so the description carries a small burden. It correctly conveys the return content (a list of linked incidents) and the domain relationship, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly; only pagination/result-volume behavior is unaddressed.

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 parameter description already explains the ID's meaning and even points to search_tickets/list_tickets for obtaining it. The description adds little beyond 'the given problem,' so 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 and resource ('Get all incident tickets linked to a problem ticket') and immediately clarifies the Zendesk problem/incident relationship. No sibling tool in the list performs this linkage retrieval, so the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly gives the use case: 'useful to gauge a problem's blast radius before resolving it.' That is clear context for when to reach for this tool, but it names no alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g., use get_ticket for a single ticket's details).

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