Retrieve detailed information about a specific ticket group by providing its ticket group ID. Access group settings and attributes for event management.
Retrieve details of a ticket group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_group_id | Yes |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve,' implying a read operation, but does not mention permissions, error cases, return format, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about operational details.
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 concise—a single sentence with no fluff—but it is under-specified. It is efficient but lacks substance; it earns its place as a basic statement but does not provide any structured or front-loaded information beyond the bare minimum.
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 simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, the parameter's semantics, or any constraints. Given the many siblings, the lack of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.
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 schema has no description for ticket_group_id and the description does not explain its meaning, format, or how to obtain a valid ID. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter completely undocumented.
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 states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('details of a ticket group'). It distinguishes from list/create/update/delete siblings by implying a single-item fetch. However, it does not specify what 'details' include, which could be ambiguous but is acceptable for a getter.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_organization_ticket_groups or how to obtain the ticket_group_id. No context on prerequisites or typical workflow is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.