Retrieve Zendesk tickets with pagination and sorting. Supports filtering by page, sort order, and fields like priority and status for effective ticket management.
Fetch the latest tickets with pagination support
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| sort_by | No | Field to sort by (created_at, updated_at, priority, status) | created_at |
| per_page | No | Number of tickets per page (max 100) | |
| sort_order | No | Sort order (asc or desc) | desc |
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 full burden. It mentions pagination support, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'latest' means (e.g., time-based cutoff). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key behavioral trait (pagination) without unnecessary details.
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 4 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and pagination but lacks context on permissions, error cases, or output format, leaving gaps for agent usage.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying pagination (covered by 'page' and 'per_page') and 'latest' (implied by sort defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('tickets'), and specifies scope ('latest' with 'pagination support'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticket' (singular) or 'search_tickets', which is a minor gap.
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 'get_ticket' (for a single ticket) or 'search_tickets' (for filtered searches). It mentions pagination but doesn't explain when pagination is needed or preferred over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.