export_ticketsExport helpdesk tickets to a CSV file, optionally filtered by status, with progress reporting and an export ID for large exports.
Export tickets to a CSV file. Slow for large exports; reports progress. Returns an export id for the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Only tickets with this status |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | ||
| rows | Yes | ||
| export_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declared, the description still adds real value: it warns that large exports are slow, notes progress reporting, and discloses the asynchronous-ish 'export id' return. That is meaningful operational context the annotations do not carry. It stops short of saying how long 'slow' is or whether the id must be polled elsewhere.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then performance, then return. No filler or repetition of the name/title.
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?
The output schema presumably covers the return shape, so the description needn't explain it further. The performance warning and export-id mention round out the key behavioral facts. The main gap is routing: nothing tells the agent why to pick this over search_tickets for non-file use cases.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'status' parameter (with an enum), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.
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 names a specific verb and resource plus the output format: 'Export tickets to a CSV file.' That is far more precise than the tautological title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search_tickets, which an agent might reasonably reach for when it just wants ticket data.
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?
There is a useful performance caveat ('Slow for large exports'), which is the closest thing to guidance, but no statement of when to use this over search_tickets, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that export is for bulk file retrieval rather than interactive querying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.