Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zendesk-mcp

zendesk-mcp

by michaelrice
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

zendesk_get_view_tickets

Retrieves tickets matching a specified Zendesk view and returns a JSON array of essential ticket fields for integration or analysis.

Instructions

Get the tickets currently matching a Zendesk view. Returns JSON array of tickets with essential fields.

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": {
      "view_id": "<view_id>"
    },
    "name": "zendesk_get_view_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
view_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the return type (JSON array of tickets) but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or whether the view must exist. The 'essential fields' hint is vague.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key action is stated first. Very concise.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, return format details are not required. However, the description lacks usage context (prerequisites, errors) and does not differentiate from siblings enough. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the view_id parameter beyond its name. No guidance on obtaining valid view IDs (e.g., from list_views).

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?

The description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'tickets matching a Zendesk view', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like zendesk_get_tickets (likely all tickets) and zendesk_get_view (view metadata).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zendesk_search_tickets or zendesk_get_tickets. The description implies use for view-based retrieval but offers no exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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