Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NKS osTicket MCP

NKS osTicket MCP

by nks-hub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

osticket_reply_ticket

Posts a customer-facing reply to an osTicket ticket and emails it to the ticket user, with optional attachments and recipient selection.

Instructions

Post a customer-facing reply to a ticket. This is emailed to the ticket's user.

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": {
      "number": "<number>",
      "response": "<response>"
    },
    "name": "osticket_reply_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alertNoEmail the user (default true)
titleNoOptional reply title
numberYesTicket number to reply to
replyToNoRecipients: all (owner + collaborators, default), user, collabs
staffIdNoAgent the reply is sent as (default: the configured API agent)
responseYesReply body, sent to the customer
attachmentsNoFiles attached to the reply and to its email. Each file is limited by osTicket's max_file_size.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Files attached to the reply and to its email. Each file is limited by osTicket's max_file_size.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "name": {
+        "description": "File name shown to the customer (default: file name from path)",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "path": {
+        "description": "Local file path, read by this server",
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": {
+        "description": "MIME type (default: guessed from the extension)",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "path"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / replyTo
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recipients: all (owner + collaborators, default), user, collabs",
+  "enum": [
+    "all",
+    "user",
+    "collabs"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / staffId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Agent the reply is sent as (default: the configured API agent)",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden; it does disclose a key side effect — the reply is emailed to the ticket's user. However, it omits other behavioral traits: whether it changes ticket status, permission requirements, or how the alert/replyTo parameters alter delivery.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key consequence (email to customer). Zero waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on core behavior (reply + email) and the schema handles parameters. But it leaves notable behavioral gaps — status changes, permissions, delivery nuances — that the structured fields do not cover.

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 all seven parameters (including alert, replyTo, staffId, attachments) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Post a customer-facing reply to a ticket') and clarifies the audience. It implicitly distinguishes from update_ticket (a reply, not a field edit) but does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 purpose implies when to use it (communicating with the customer), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over osticket_update_ticket or when not to use it. Alternatives and conditions are left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools