mcp-ispkeeper

get_ticket

Retrieve support ticket details, optionally including photos, movement log, checkin/checkout, materials used, or chat attachments. Select the specific data needed for a complete view.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a support ticket, optionally with photos, movement log, checkin/checkout, materials used, or chat messages and files. ⚠️ NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead.

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": "get_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`include`	No	What to retrieve: detail (default), photos, log (movement history), checkin (field visit checkin/checkout), materials (stock used), or chat_attachments (ticket detail with chat messages and files)
`ticket_id`	Yes	Ticket ID
`relaciones`	No	Expand relations (only for detail): usu,tec,tecaco,sol,motb,suc,subn,pl,cli,clitmp,cat,subcat,asig,stat,chat,archivos,checkin

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0Sep 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / include / description

Previous value: -"What to retrieve: detail (default), photos, log (movement history), checkin (field visit checkin/checkout), or chat_attachments (chat messages and files)"New value: +"What to retrieve: detail (default), photos, log (movement history), checkin (field visit checkin/checkout), materials (stock used), or chat_attachments (ticket detail with chat messages and files)"

changedInput schema / properties / include / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "detail",
-  "photos",
-  "log",
-  "checkin",
-  "chat_attachments"
-]New value: +[
+  "detail",
+  "photos",
+  "log",
+  "checkin",
+  "materials",
+  "chat_attachments"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / relaciones

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Expand relations (only for detail): usu,tec,tecaco,sol,motb,suc,subn,pl,cli,clitmp,cat,subcat,asig,stat,chat,archivos,checkin",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.3.1Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does include a cautionary note about never fabricating data and reporting errors, which is valuable behavioral guidance. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, permissions, or other side effects beyond this warning, lacking comprehensive transparency.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a support ticket'), then lists optional components, and ends with an important safety warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool with multiple optional components and a relations parameter, the description covers the main functionality and includes a critical error-handling note. It does not explicitly describe return format, but as a 'get' tool it is implied. The absence of an output schema is partially offset by the description's clarity, though more detail on behavior (e.g., error responses) 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight clarity by listing the optional components (photos, log, checkin/checkout, etc.) that map to the 'include' parameter, but it does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already describes. It adds marginal value but not substantial.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a support ticket', with optional component details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tickets by focusing on a single ticket with rich options, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving detailed ticket info but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_tickets or other get_* tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage somewhat implicit.

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