RT MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: grammar reference, single ticket retrieval, search, correspondence, attachment download, and hierarchy. There is no overlap between tools, and an agent can easily select the right one.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, mostly using 'get_' (get_ticket, get_correspondence, get_attachment, get_hierarchy) plus 'search_tickets' which appropriately uses 'search' for the query capability. All names are snake_case and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for an RT ticket system. The set covers core read operations without being bloated, and each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.
Completeness3/5
The tool set provides solid read coverage: retrieval, search, correspondence, attachments, and hierarchy. However, it lacks any write operations such as creating or updating tickets, replying, or changing status, which are fundamental to a ticketing system and would likely be expected by agents.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on November 25, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only operation by nature ('Get') and lists returned fields, but does not mention edge cases such as errors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is minimal for a read tool, but lacks explicit behavioral context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and a summary of contents. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no wasted words.
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?
With one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return value fields. It uses 'including' to signal the list may not be exhaustive, but for a focused tool it provides adequate context without needing more.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter 'ticket_id' with a clear description ('The RT ticket ID number'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('complete ticket information') with a clear parameter ('by ticket ID'). It lists key attributes (subject, status, queue, owner, dates, priority, custom fields), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_tickets or get_ticket_correspondence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific ticket ID is known and full details are needed, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (base64-encoded content with metadata) and that it works for any file type, but does not mention side effects, error handling, or safety profile. The download verb implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then the return behavior. No redundant words or filler.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates purpose and return format. It omits error details, but these are not critical for a straightforward download tool.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter `attachment_id` is clearly described as 'The RT attachment ID number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Download a specific attachment by ID', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on tickets, not attachments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you have an attachment ID) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Siblings are clearly different, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral details: retrieves all correspondence entries, groups by transaction, shows inline text messages and file attachment metadata. This goes beyond a generic 'get' verb, though it does not cover edge cases like empty results or error behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. The parenthetical and follow-up sentence clarify scope and contents efficiently.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what is returned and how it is organized. It could mention pagination/ordering, but is not incomplete for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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?
The schema provides 100% description coverage for the single ticked_id parameter ('The RT ticket ID number'). The description does not add detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves ticket correspondence including comments, replies, and attachment metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ticket and get_attachment by specifying grouped-by-transaction structure and inline text vs. attachment metadata.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is clear the tool retrieves correspondence, there is no mention of when-not-to-use it or comparison to siblings like get_attachment for individual files, or get_ticket for the main ticket record.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of exposing behavior. It discloses the key behavioral trait of recursive versus immediate relationships, which is valuable. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It is concise and well-structured, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core behavior and the recursive flag. However, it could be more complete by describing the expected return structure (e.g., a tree representation) to fully set agent expectations.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the recursive and ticket_id parameters. It does not clarify types, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.
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 gets ticket hierarchy, explicitly mentioning parent/child relationships, and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ticket or get_ticket_correspondence. The verb 'Get' and resource 'ticket hierarchy' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the recursive parameter behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied (when you need hierarchy), but no explicit guidance or sibling distinctions are given beyond the tool's own description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that results are summary information, not full ticket details, and that special TicketSQL syntax like '__CurrentUser__' and relative date expressions are supported. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or response structure, but for a search tool it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a critical usage warning, illustrative examples, and a pointer to the grammar tool. The examples are numerous but each serves a distinct use case, and there is no filler. It is longer than minimal, but the length is justified by the complexity of TicketSQL.
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?
For a complex TicketSQL-based search tool with no output schema, the description covers the query language, sorting, pagination, and the not-free-text constraint, and links to the full grammar reference. The main gap is that it does not specify exactly which fields are included in the 'summary information' results, leaving the return format somewhat under-specified.
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 significantly enhances the query parameter by providing multiple TicketSQL examples that illustrate syntax, operators, and field names. It also clarifies through examples how orderby, order, and per_page interact, adding value beyond the raw schema descriptions.
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 searches for tickets using RT's TicketSQL query language and returns summary information with sorting and pagination. This specific verb+resource+mechanism combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ticket, which fetches individual ticket details, and get_ticketsql_grammar, which only provides grammar reference.
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 explicitly warns that the query is TicketSQL and NOT free-text keyword search, and provides multiple concrete examples covering common use cases. It also directs users to get_ticketsql_grammar for the full grammar reference. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_ticket or get_ticket_correspondence for retrieving detailed ticket data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description correctly conveys a read-only operation that returns a reference. It doesn't disclose any side effects or unexpected behaviors, but the tool is inherently simple and the description covers its main function. A slight extra detail on return format would elevate it, but it's adequate.
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 two sentences, with the first stating the tool's function and content, and the second providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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 it's a simple reference-lookup tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it returns, how it relates to search_tickets, and when to call it. There are no gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description focuses on the purpose rather than parameter details, which is appropriate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing here reduces that.
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 returns the TicketSQL query language reference, specifying the content (fields, operators, date literals, and examples) and its relationship to the search_tickets query parameter. This isolates it from sibling tools like get_ticket or search_tickets, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('Call this when constructing non-trivial searches'), tying it to the search_tickets parameter. While it doesn't discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rt-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/msekoranja/rt-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/msekoranja/rt-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rt-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/msekoranja/rt-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/msekoranja/rt-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/msekoranja/rt-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server