Retrieve a single support ticket by ID, including its description and latest note, to review issue details and recent updates.
Fetch one ticket, including its description and latest note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | Ticket id, such as TCK-1001. | |
| access_token | No | Shared secret. Required only when OPS_MCP_TOKEN is set on the server. Omit it for local stdio when that variable is unset. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Fetch" implies a read operation and the description discloses that the ticket description and latest note are included, but it does not state read-only semantics, authentication requirements, error behavior, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the action, scope, and returned contents efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-ticket retrieval tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be stronger by clarifying when to use this versus list_open_tickets or search_docs, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both ticket_id and access_token are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or behavior beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("one ticket") and states what is returned: description and latest note. It implicitly distinguishes from list_open_tickets and create_ticket by scope, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not explain when to choose get_ticket over list_open_tickets, search_docs, or get_doc, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and required ticket_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.