Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

swsd_create_incident_task

Create a sub-task on a SolarWinds Service Desk incident using the incident ID and task name, with optional description, due date, and assignee. Returns the created task for follow-up.

Instructions

Create a new sub-task on a SWSD incident. Required: incident_id, name. Optional: description (plain text or HTML), due_at (ISO 8601), assignee_email. The created task is returned for follow-up calls. WRITE — does not retry on transient failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTask name (required).
due_atNoDue date / datetime in ISO 8601 (e.g., "2026-06-01" or RFC 3339).
descriptionNoLong-form task description. Plain text or HTML.
incident_idYesSWSD incident reference. Accepts either the internal id (>=7 digits, e.g. 180457930) or the human-facing number (<=6 digits, e.g. 60310). The handler auto-detects via digit count.
assignee_emailNoEmail of the SWSD user to assign the task to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignee_email / maxLength
      Added value: +320
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / maxLength
      Added value: +100000
    • addedInput schema / properties / due_at / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date",
+    "maxLength": 64,
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "maxLength": 64,
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / due_at / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that this is a WRITE operation that does not retry on transient failure, adding operational nuance beyond the annotations. It also states that the created task is returned, which is valuable since there is no output schema. This meaningfully extends what annotations alone provide.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose, parameter summary, and behavioral note. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value with no filler. The 'WRITE — does not retry on transient failure' note is especially information-dense.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the core operation, required inputs, return value, and retry behavior, which is adequate for a straightforward create tool without an output schema. It omits potential error cases or prerequisite conditions, but the annotations and full schema coverage fill in most gaps, so the description is nearly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description's parameter summary (e.g., 'plain text or HTML', 'ISO 8601') duplicates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new sub-task on a SWSD incident.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like swsd_create_incident, swsd_add_incident_comment, and swsd_create_service_request. No ambiguity about what resource is being acted upon.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear invocation context by stating required and optional parameters, so an agent knows what is needed to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool versus sibling create/update tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools