NKS osTicket MCP

osticket_create_ticket

Create a new support ticket by providing a subject and message. Optionally include submitter name, email, help topic, and priority.

Instructions

Create a new ticket. Requires subject and message.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "osticket_create_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Submitter name
`email`	No	Submitter email
`message`	Yes	Ticket body (message)
`subject`	Yes	Ticket subject
`topicId`	No	Help topic id
`priority`	No	Priority id (1=low..4=emergency)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new ticket' and 'Requires subject and message.' It omits details on authentication, rate limits, what happens with invalid data, or side effects (e.g., email notifications).

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 short and to the point, consisting of two sentences. It is concise without being verbose, but it could be more informative while remaining succinct.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain default values for optional fields (e.g., priority, topicId), the response format, or error handling. It lacks completeness for a tool that creates a resource.

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%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds only that subject and message are required, which is already implied by the schema. No additional semantic guidance is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Create' and resource 'a new ticket', and notes required fields. It clearly communicates the core action, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings like osticket_reply_ticket.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as osticket_reply_ticket or osticket_update_ticket. There is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server