Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Inserve-MCP

Inserve-MCP

Official
by inserveit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Notitie of bericht toevoegen aan ticket

add_ticket_message

Add an internal note, portal-visible note, email reply, or reply-and-close message to a support ticket, controlling who sees it and how the ticket status changes.

Instructions

Add a note or message to a ticket. Type "internal_note" (default) is a hidden note, only visible to operators and never shown to or e-mailed to the contact; "visible_note" is also visible to the contact in the portal, "reply" e-mails the contact and sets the ticket to waiting for reply, "reply_and_close" e-mails the contact and closes the ticket. Always show the text and get explicit confirmation from the user before sending a reply to the contact. Do not add a signature, Inserve adds it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "add_ticket_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNointernal_note
messageYesThe message, plain text.
ticket_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that internal notes are never e-mailed or shown to the contact, that replies change ticket status to waiting-for-reply, that reply_and_close closes the ticket, and that a signature is appended automatically and must not be added. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before invoking a non-destructive but externally-visible write.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then mode semantics, then the confirmation rule and the signature rule; almost no waste. It is a single dense block that would read better as a short list of modes, but every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the important side effects (visibility, e-mailing, status changes) and the confirmation requirement. It does not say what the call returns or how failures/validation errors surface, a minor 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 only 33%, so the description carries weight here and does: it explains every enum value of `type`, its default, and the real-world consequence of each. `ticket_id` is left undocumented in both places, and the 20,000-character limit on `message` is only in 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 ("Add a note or message to a ticket") and immediately enumerates the four message modes, which makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like get_ticket, update_ticket and create_ticket.

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?

Gives clear selection guidance for each mode (internal_note hidden, visible_note portal-visible, reply e-mails and sets waiting-for-reply, reply_and_close e-mails and closes) plus an explicit confirmation gate before replying. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this tool' or a named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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