Create a new Zendesk ticket with required subject and description, plus optional priority, type, tags, assignee, requester, and custom fields.
Create a new Zendesk ticket
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| type | No | problem, incident, question, task | |
| subject | Yes | Ticket subject | |
| priority | No | low, normal, high, urgent | |
| assignee_id | No | ||
| description | Yes | Ticket description | |
| requester_id | No | ||
| custom_fields | No |
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether tickets are immediately visible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (create ticket) and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.
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 write operation with 8 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context, parameter documentation gaps, or provide any information about what the tool returns upon success.
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 only 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the purpose of fields like requester_id, assignee_id, tags, or custom_fields, nor does it provide examples or clarify relationships between parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new Zendesk ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'update_ticket' or explain what distinguishes ticket creation from other ticket operations.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_ticket' or 'search_tickets'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a requester_id), appropriate contexts, or limitations compared to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.