Skip to main content
Glama
Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

List My Requests

list_requests
Read-onlyIdempotent

List and search the requests the signed-in user submitted, newest first, with number, subject, status and solvability. Use it to review your own tickets, not an agent queue.

Instructions

List the requests the signed-in user submitted, newest activity first by default. Returns each request with its number, subject, status and whether the user can mark it solved; pass a query to search their own requests by free text instead of listing all of them. Scoped to the caller by Zendesk itself — it can never return anyone else's tickets — which is why an agent calling this sees only requests they raised, not their queue. Use get_request to read one with its full conversation. Agents wanting a queue want list_tickets, search_tickets or get_view_tickets instead.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number for offset pagination. Increment it while keeping `per_page` fixed to fetch subsequent pages; page 1 is the first page.
queryNoFree text to match against the caller's own requests. When given, the search endpoint is used instead of the plain listing; omit it to list everything.
statusNoRestrict to these ticket states, e.g. ["open","pending"] for anything still being worked. Validated here because Zendesk silently returns every request when it does not recognise a status.
sort_byNoWhich timestamp orders the results: updated_at surfaces recent activity, created_at the newest submissions.updated_at
per_pageNoNumber of results per page for offset pagination (1-100). Pair with `page` to walk large result sets; the response header reports the total count and whether more pages remain.
sort_orderNoDirection of that ordering; desc puts the most recent first, which is what a user following their tickets wants.desc

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.9.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the crucial scoping rule that Zendesk enforces caller-scoping so the tool can never return another user's tickets, plus the default ordering and the fields returned per request (number, subject, status, solvability). The openWorldHint annotation is not contradicted — the scoping claim is about the API's authorization boundary, not reach.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before moving to alternatives. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the scoping explanation is slightly long-winded relative to the rest.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and flags the per-item solvability check, and the pagination/total-count behaviour is documented in the parameter descriptions. For a six-parameter read-only list tool whose annotations already cover safety, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining that supplying `query` switches the tool to the search endpoint rather than filtering a listing, and by noting results are newest-activity-first by default. It stops short of covering pagination behaviour, which the schema already handles.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List the requests the signed-in user submitted") and immediately contrasts it with get_request for single-request reads and with list_tickets / search_tickets / get_view_tickets for queue-style work. An agent can distinguish this from every relevant sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance (own submissions, not a queue), a documented alternative path within the same tool ("pass a query to search their own requests ... instead of listing all of them"), and names the correct sibling tools for the queue case. Both the positive case and the exclusion are stated.

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