Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

swsd_create_incident

Create a new SolarWinds Service Desk incident with required name and optional details like description, requester email, and priority. Returns the incident ID for follow-up actions.

Instructions

Create a new SWSD incident. Required: name. Strongly recommended: description, requester_email, priority, category_name. The created incident's ID is returned for follow-up calls (swsd_assign_incident, swsd_add_incident_comment, etc.). WRITE — does not retry on transient failure; the agent should verify with swsd_get_incident before retrying. To set tenant-specific custom field values, pass custom_fields: [{name, value}] — call swsd_describe_custom_fields first to discover field names and (for Dropdowns) allowed values. Validated for Text, Dropdown, Number, Checkbox, and Date types.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesShort incident title (required).
priorityNoPriority name (e.g., "Low", "Medium", "High"). Tenant-specific values.
site_nameNoSite name (see swsd_list_sites).
descriptionNoLong-form description of the issue. Plain text or HTML.
category_nameNoCategory name (must match an existing SWSD category — see swsd_list_categories).
custom_fieldsNoSet tenant-specific custom field values on the record. Multi_picklist and User-type fields are not yet supported by this tool (set those via the SWSD UI). Validated for Text, Dropdown, Number, Checkbox, and Date types.
assignee_emailNoEmail of the agent to assign on creation. Use swsd_assign_incident later instead if you want to defer.
department_nameNoDepartment name (see swsd_list_departments).
requester_emailNoEmail of the user the ticket is for. Defaults to the token owner if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedInput schema / properties / assignee_email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / requester_email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
  2. Changed10 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignee_email / maxLength
      Added value: +320
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_fields / items / properties / name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • changedInput schema / properties / custom_fields / items / properties / value / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 100000,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_fields / maxItems
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / department_name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / maxLength
      Added value: +100000
    • addedInput schema / properties / priority / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / requester_email / maxLength
      Added value: +320
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_name / maxLength
      Added value: +500
  3. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations cannot convey: it does not retry on transient failure and the agent should verify with swsd_get_incident before retrying. It also discloses the return of the incident ID and the supported/unsupported custom-field types (multi_picklist and User excluded), which is real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then requirements, return value, retry caveat, and the custom-fields note — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and the final sentence largely restates the custom_fields schema description, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: required vs. optional inputs, the returned ID, non-idempotent retry handling, cross-tool prerequisites, and custom-field type limitations. There is no meaningful gap an agent would hit when invoking it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by prioritizing parameters (required `name`, strongly recommended `description`/`requester_email`/`priority`/`category_name`) and by explaining the `custom_fields: [{name, value}]` shape and the need to discover field names first. It doesn't add format or validation detail beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a new SWSD incident") and immediately scopes the required vs. strongly recommended fields, so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It never differentiates itself from the sibling swsd_create_service_request, which is the one plausible confusion in this toolset, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing guidance throughout: assign at creation via assignee_email or defer to swsd_assign_incident, call swsd_describe_custom_fields before setting custom fields, and use swsd_get_incident to verify before retrying. It also names the follow-up tools that consume the returned ID, giving the agent a clear workflow path.

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