RT MCP Server

get_ticket_hierarchy

Fetch a ticket's full hierarchy tree recursively, or just its immediate parent/child links.

Instructions

Get ticket hierarchy (parent/child relationships). Builds the complete hierarchy tree if recursive=true, or only immediate relationships if recursive=false.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ticket_hierarchy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recursive`	No	Whether to recursively fetch the entire hierarchy tree (default: true)
`ticket_id`	Yes	The RT ticket ID number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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.

Deploy Server