Change a ticket's status to reflect its current progress in HR workflows. Provide the ticket ID and new status to receive confirmation.
Update the status of a ticket.
:param ticket_id: Ticket ID
:param status: New status of the ticket
:return: Confirmation message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| ticket_id | Yes |
| 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 provided, the description carries full burden of disclosure. It only states 'Update the status' without revealing side effects, validation, or behavior on invalid IDs. A mutation tool needs more detail.
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 description is short and docstring-style, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action but could benefit from a cleaner non-docstring format.
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?
Given the lack of parameter details, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is too minimal. It omits valid statuses, behavior on failure, and output structure, making it incomplete for confident agent invocation.
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%. The description repeats parameter names ('Ticket ID', 'New status') but adds no meaningful constraints or allowed values. It provides minimal clarification beyond the schema titles.
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 'Update the status of a ticket' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ticket and list_tickets, as none of them update ticket status.
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?
The description implies usage for updating status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.