Retrieve a ticket by its ID to view the full body and see which tickets it blocks, information not stored on the ticket itself.
Read one ticket by ID, with its full body. Also reports which tickets it blocks — that direction is not stored on the ticket itself, so this is the only way to see it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety and behavior burden. It clearly says 'Read' (non-mutating), mentions the full body, and reveals the derived blocking info. It does not detail errors or permissions, but for a read tool with an output schema, the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds one valuable distinguishing behavior. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-ID read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, scope, and the one non-obvious behavior (blocking direction). It does not mention what happens if the ticket ID is missing or invalid, but the output schema and common read-tool semantics likely cover that. Slightly more context about how ticket_id relates to other tools could improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter, ticket_id, with 0% description coverage. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the obvious purpose of the parameter but adds no extra detail about format, source, or representation. This is acceptable for a single self-evident parameter but does not go beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Read one ticket by ID, with its full body' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also adds the unique blocking-report behavior, which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like list_tickets and update_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the blocking direction is not stored on the ticket itself and that this is 'the only way to see it,' giving a clear context for when this tool is needed. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.