Create a ticket group under an organization to bundle ticket classes and set a live or draft status. Use this to manage and organize ticket types effectively.
Create a ticket group under an organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| status | No | live | |
| organization_id | Yes | ||
| ticket_class_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the basic creation operation and does not mention permissions, side effects, default behavior, status implications, or what happens to associated ticket classes.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is under-specified, but it avoids redundancy and keeps the core purpose front-loaded.
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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and multiple parameters, the description leaves important context missing: whether status defaults matter, what ticket_class_ids does, and any behavioral caveats. The output schema exists, but it does not compensate for missing usage and behavioral context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, and the description adds no meaning for 'name', 'status', 'organization_id', or 'ticket_class_ids'. It only repeats the organizational scope implied by the tool name.
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 names a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('ticket group'), and the scope ('under an organization'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_ticket_group, update_ticket_group, and delete_ticket_group.
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?
No guidance is given about when to create a ticket group versus updating or listing existing ones. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.