Skip to main content
Glama
fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

by fruggr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List Zendesk Tickets

list_tickets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Zendesk tickets in ascending ID order with cursor-based pagination. Set page_size (1-100) and pass the cursor to fetch the next page; for recency use search_tickets.

Instructions

List tickets with cursor-based pagination, in Zendesk's default order (ascending ticket id), not by recency. Page size is controlled by page_size (not per_page, which is the offset-based parameter used by search_tickets); paginate by passing the returned cursor. To find tickets by recency or any other criterion, use search_tickets with a query.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous response; omit for the first page.
page_sizeNoTickets per page (1-100, default 100).

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. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / cursor / description
      Previous value: -"Pagination cursor"New value: +"Pagination cursor from a previous response; omit for the first page."
    • addedInput schema / properties / page_size / description
      Added value: +"Tickets per page (1-100, default 100)."
  3. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: results are ordered by ascending id rather than recency, and pagination is cursor-based via a returned cursor. It omits details like rate limits or total-count behavior, so it stops 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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero filler: ordering/nature first, pagination mechanics second, alternative tool routing last. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, pagination mechanics, and sibling routing, which is close to everything needed. It does not describe the returned ticket shape or cursor header/field name, a minor remaining gap.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that page_size (not per_page) controls page size here and that the cursor is returned by the previous response and passed back to paginate, adding real semantic value beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact ordering semantics ('Zendesk's default order (ascending ticket id), not by recency'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not (search_tickets). An agent can distinguish it from the many list_*/get_* siblings 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: use this for cursor-based enumeration, use search_tickets with a query to find tickets by recency or any other criterion. It even warns that search_tickets uses per_page instead of page_size, which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs.

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