Zendesk MCP Server (Extended)

update_ticket

Destructive

Update fields such as status, priority, subject, tags, and custom fields on an existing Zendesk ticket.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing Zendesk ticket. Requires the tickets:write scope.

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": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`type`	No
`due_at`	No
`status`	No
`subject`	No
`priority`	No
`ticket_id`	Yes
`assignee_id`	No
`requester_id`	No
`custom_fields`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that it updates fields, listing allowed values for status, priority, and due_at format. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not disclose all side effects (e.g., which fields are overwritten vs appended).

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 concise, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and scope requirement, then lists parameter constraints in a compact format. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers core purpose and key parameters but omits descriptions for 7 parameters and does not explain update semantics for custom_fields or tags. More detail would improve completeness.

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 0%, and the description only documents 3 of 10 parameters (status, priority, due_at) with allowed values/format. This adds some value but leaves 7 parameters (e.g., tags, type, subject, assignee_id) undocumented, which is insufficient for full understanding.

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 it updates an existing Zendesk ticket, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ticket (for new tickets) and get_ticket (for read-only).

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?

The description mentions the required scope (tickets:write) and provides allowed values for key parameters, giving implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_tickets or create_ticket.

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

Deploy Server