get_ticket_contextRetrieve a ticket's full context, including recent commits, pending actions, and last activity time. Use this to quickly understand the current state and history of a ticket.
Returns full context for a named ticket: recent commits, current pending actions targeting it, and its last activity time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | The ticket ID, e.g. PROJ-123 or AB-7 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, errors, side effects) but also does not contradict the annotations, so a neutral score is appropriate.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists the returned components without unnecessary verbosity. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The description lists the key components of the returned context (commits, actions, last activity), which gives a clear idea of what the tool provides. It does not specify output structure or error cases, but for a simple read-only context tool, it is reasonably complete.
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?
The only parameter ticket_id is well-described with an example in the schema. The description does not add additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool returns full context for a named ticket, listing specific components (recent commits, recent actions, last activity). The verb 'returns' and the resource 'ticket' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_active_context by focusing on a named ticket.
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 implies usage by stating it returns context for a named ticket, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_active_context or get_pending_actions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.