Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Inserve-MCP

Inserve-MCP

Official
by inserveit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Ticket aanmaken

create_ticket

Create tickets in Inserve with subject and message; link contacts by ID or email and optionally assign operator, priority, or type. The initial message is saved as an internal note.

Instructions

Create a ticket. The contact can be given by id or by e-mail address; with an e-mail address the matching contact and (when unambiguous) its company are linked automatically. The first message is stored as an internal note and is not e-mailed to the contact.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "create_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoDescription of the request or problem, plain text.
subjectYesShort subject of the ticket.
company_idNo
contact_idNo
operator_idNoAssign the ticket to this operator.
priority_idNoDefaults to the default priority.
contact_emailNoLink the contact with this e-mail address.
ticket_type_idNoDefaults to the default ticket type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only declare that this is a non-destructive write in a closed world. The description goes beyond that by disclosing two non-obvious behaviors: e-mail matching auto-links the contact and, when unambiguous, its company; and the initial message is stored as an internal note rather than e-mailed. That is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs before calling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the two behaviors that matter most. No filler, duplicated schema text, or hedging.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the riskiest behaviors well but omits what the call returns (presumably the new ticket or its id), which an agent needs to chain into add_ticket_message or get_ticket. It also doesn't address conflicts between contact_id and contact_email.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning the schema lacks: contact_id and contact_email are alternative identification paths, with the email path triggering automatic contact/company resolution. It leaves open what happens if both are supplied and says nothing about operator_id or the lookup-style id parameters, so it is helpful but not complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a ticket'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_ticket_message or update_ticket, but the create-vs-modify distinction is evident from the verb.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives concrete guidance on how to identify the contact (by id or e-mail) and what happens to the first message, which is real usage context. However, it never states when to use this tool versus add_ticket_message or update_ticket, nor any prerequisites such as whether contact or company must already exist.

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