mcp-tomticket
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-tomticket
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceConnect to SparrowDesk using MCP and manage your tickets, knowledge base and more.1-- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to query and operate a help desk and service desk through MCP over HTTP, including tickets, requester communications, internal notes, attachments, stage and SLA history, time entries, clients, requesters, desks, knowledge base, contracts, and billing/satisfaction reports.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server to interact with Zammad ticketing system, enabling ticket search, creation, update, article addition, and user/organization/group queries via the Zammad API.22 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables to interact with Re:lation support tickets via MCP. Allows searching, updating, replying to tickets, and managing customers and internal records.1110 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for the Ticksy support ticket API, enabling AI agents to read and write support tickets.169 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that exposes the i-net HelpDesk Ticket Web-API as tools for AI agents, enabling ticket search, reading, creation, and actions like replying, closing, and escalating, with attachment support.8MIT
TDQS
Scored across 49 tools
Most tools are clearly distinct, but several families overlap: tomticket_list_departments already includes categories, operators, and statuses, while separate department-list tools exist. Similarly, tomticket_list_custom_fields overlaps with five scoped custom-field listers. The descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always obvious in a 49-tool set.
The tools overwhelmingly follow a clear tomticket_verb_noun snake_case pattern, such as list_tickets, create_customer, and finish_ticket. Minor deviations like tomticket_customer_exists and tomticket_customer_quick_access break the verb-first convention, but the overall naming scheme remains predictable and readable.
49 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and creates unnecessary navigation burden. Many tools could be consolidated with parameters, such as the six custom-field listers and four department listers, making the surface heavier than the domain requires.
Core ticket, customer, and article workflows are well covered, including mutation operations. However, notable gaps exist: there is no general ticket update/delete, no delete for articles/customers/organizations, no article-category management beyond listing, and chat tools are read-only with no reply capability.