zendesk-mcp

create_ticket

Create a new Zendesk ticket by providing a subject and comment body. Optionally include type, priority, tags, assignee, and requester email.

Instructions

WRITE: Create a new ticket (POST /api/v2/tickets).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No
`type`	No
`subject`	Yes
`priority`	No
`assignee_id`	No
`comment_body`	Yes	First comment / ticket description
`requester_email`	No	End user email. If the user does not exist, Zendesk creates it automatically.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates it's a write operation via 'WRITE' and 'POST', but doesn't explain permissions, side effects, auto-creation of users, or response behavior. This is minimal.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the action. Every word is purposeful, no filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description is overly terse for a create operation with 7 parameters and no annotations. It omits context about required permissions, side effects (like auto-creating the requester user), and any operational caveats.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no parameter semantics. Schema coverage is only 29%, and the description doesn't compensate, leaving most parameters (tags, type, subject, priority, assignee_id) without explanatory context beyond their names.

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's function ('Create a new ticket') with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like update_ticket and add_ticket_comment.

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 on when to use this vs. alternatives; the description only provides a terse statement and endpoint without mentioning update_ticket or any conditions.

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

Deploy Server