Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

swsd_create_problem

Create a new SWSD problem (ITIL record) with required name, plus optional description, priority, category, subcategory, assignee, and requester. Returns the problem ID for follow-up actions like root-cause analysis and known-error tracking.

Instructions

Create a new SWSD problem (ITIL problem record). Required: name. Strongly recommended: description, priority, category. The created problem's id is returned for follow-up calls. Use this when promoting a recurring incident to a problem record so root-cause analysis and known-error tracking can be tied to multiple incidents. WRITE — does not retry on transient failure; the agent should verify with swsd_get_problem before retrying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesProblem title (required).
categoryNoCategory name (must match an existing SWSD category — see swsd_list_categories).
priorityNoPriority name (e.g. High, Medium, Low). Tenant-specific values.
descriptionNoDescription (HTML or plain text).
subcategoryNoSubcategory name (nested under category).
assignee_emailNoEmail of the agent to assign the problem to.
requester_emailNoEmail of the user the problem is for. Defaults to the token owner if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / assignee_email / maxLength
      Added value: +320
    • addedInput schema / properties / category / 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 / subcategory / maxLength
      Added value: +500
  2. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds specific behavioral detail: it labels the tool as 'WRITE', states it does not retry on transient failure, and instructs the agent to verify with `swsd_get_problem`. It also discloses that the created problem's id is returned. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the exact failure-handling behavior, though it doesn't mention other potential side effects beyond creation.

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 compact (about four sentences) and front-loads the core action and required field, then provides usage context and failure handling. Every sentence contributes information—there is no filler or repetition of obvious schema details. The structure flows logically from what → when → failure behavior.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what the tool does, required fields, what it returns (id), when to use it, and how to handle failures. It even references the verification tool. No additional information is needed for an agent to call it correctly; the schema fills in the remaining parameter details.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds prioritization: it flags `name` as required and `description`, `priority`, and `category` as strongly recommended. This hierarchy isn't in the schema and helps the agent decide which parameters matter most, adding value beyond the structured schema definitions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a new SWSD problem (ITIL problem record)'), clearly identifies the required `name` field, and immediately distinguishes it from incident creation by explaining the use case ('promoting a recurring incident to a problem record'). It also hints at the follow-up `swsd_get_problem` call, making its role unambiguous among many incident and problem tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when promoting a recurring incident to a problem record') and gives practical guidance on required/recommended fields. It also advises verification with `swsd_get_problem` after failure, effectively telling the agent when not to simply retry, which is clear usage direction not present in other definitions.

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