zendesk-mcp

by michaelrice

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

zendesk_set_ticket_status

Update a Zendesk ticket's status to manage its lifecycle, choosing from new, open, pending, hold, solved, or closed.

Instructions

Set the status of a Zendesk ticket. Valid statuses: new, open, pending, hold, solved, closed.

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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "zendesk_set_ticket_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`ticket_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set the status' and lists valid statuses, but does not describe side effects, required permissions, rate limits, whether transitions are reversible, or error handling for invalid transitions.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the essential list of valid statuses. Every sentence is necessary.

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 a simple mutation tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the return value (though an output schema exists) or error cases. It covers the status enumeration but lacks operational context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does so for the 'status' parameter by listing valid values, but provides no additional context for 'ticket_id' beyond what the schema shows (type integer).

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 clearly states the tool sets the status of a Zendesk ticket, and lists valid statuses. This differentiates it from sibling tools like zendesk_assign_ticket or zendesk_update_ticket which perform different actions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the ticket must be in a certain state, nor does it suggest related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.