Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zendesk-mcp

zendesk-mcp

by sophiabanda
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

summarize_daily_work

summarize_daily_work

Summarize daily Zendesk activity: tickets touched, solved, still open, and high-priority follow-ups. Use for end-of-day review or standup preparation.

Instructions

Summarize Zendesk activity for a given day (default: today) — tickets touched, solved, still open, and any high-priority items needing follow-up. Ask for this at end of day or during standup prep.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) to summarize; defaults to today
assigneeNoAssignee email to scope the summary to; defaults to ZENDESK_EMAIL (you)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes what the summary includes (tickets touched, solved, open, high-priority) and notes assignee defaults. Omits output format, but is acceptable for a read-only summary tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, key content, and usage context. Could mention output type, but overall complete for a simple summary tool.

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 coverage is 100% and already includes default descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Clearly states verb (summarize) and resource (Zendesk activity for a day). Distinct from sibling tools like search_similar_tickets which are different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly recommends when to use ('end of day or during standup prep'). No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context is clear given distinct sibling purposes.

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