Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Zendesk MCP Server

Zendesk MCP Server

by rlowndes9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_custom_role

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Zendesk custom role by its ID, including the full permission grid. Requires Enterprise plan.

Instructions

Fetch one custom role by ID with the full permission grid. Enterprise-plan-gated.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_custom_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCustom role ID
instanceNoOverride the sticky instance for this call

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: it returns the 'full permission grid' and is 'Enterprise-plan-gated', which are beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no waste. The action and key points are front-loaded: 'Fetch one custom role by ID with the full permission grid'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and plan gating. It lacks details on error behavior or return structure, but given the lack of output schema and simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the id parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('custom role'), and the specific scope ('by ID with the full permission grid'). It distinguishes from list_custom_roles by specifying a single role with full details, and adds the Enterprise-plan gating.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'Enterprise-plan-gated' which gives context on availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., list_custom_roles) or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not detailed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools