Retrieve and filter HR support tickets by employee ID or status to track open, in-progress, closed, or rejected requests.
List tickets, optionally filtered by employee and/or status.
:param employee_id: Employee ID (optional)
:param status: Ticket status: Open, In Progress, Closed or Rejected (optional)
:return: List of tickets
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| employee_id | No |
| 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 burden; 'List tickets' implies a non-destructive read, which is the main safety signal. However, it never says whether the result is paginated, ordered, permission-scoped, or what happens when no filter is supplied (all tickets vs. none).
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and every part of the :param: block adds documentation the schema lacks. The ':return: List of tickets' line is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered: purpose, filter semantics, and valid status values. What's missing is behavior when filters are omitted and result-set characteristics (volume, ordering), which matters because this tool can return the entire ticket table with no arguments.
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 0%, so the description is doing real work: it names both parameters, marks them optional, and enumerates the valid status values (Open, In Progress, Closed, Rejected), which the schema does not do. It lacks any hint on employee_id format, but overall compensation is strong.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List tickets') plus optional filtering dimensions, which is clear on its own. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_ticket or update_ticket_status, though the read-vs-write contrast is implicit.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'optionally filtered by employee and/or status' – the agent can infer that filters narrow the result set, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_employee_details for per-employee views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.