Add a public or internal comment to an existing Zendesk ticket to share updates or ask questions.
Create a new comment on an existing Zendesk ticket
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| public | No | Whether the comment should be public | |
| comment | Yes | The comment text. Markdown, plain text, and HTML are all accepted. | |
| ticket_id | Yes | The ID of the ticket to comment on |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the basic mutation. It does not say whether the comment triggers customer notifications, how the 'public' default affects visibility, or what happens if ticket_id is invalid.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, correctly naming the action and target. Nothing is buried or repeated.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits notification/visibility implications of the public flag, error behavior for missing tickets, and permission requirements. The schema covers inputs, but behavioral context an agent needs to invoke this safely is absent.
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 100%, so all three parameters (ticket_id, comment, public) are already documented inline, including format notes for comment and the default for public. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (comment on a Zendesk ticket) with a scoping constraint ('existing'), which cleanly separates it from sibling read tools like get_ticket_comments and from update_ticket. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it falls just short of 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_ticket, nor any mention of prerequisites like the ticket existing or required permissions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.