Skip to main content
Glama
subbuyalla

WeTrack Enterprise MCP Server

by subbuyalla

wetrack_create_support_ticket

Create a support ticket in WeTrack by providing title, status, priority, organisation, and project. Optionally add description, assignee, dates, and estimate.

Instructions

Create a legacy support ticket (not an EPIC/STORY/TASK/BUG work item).

Args: title: Ticket title e.g. 'Login issue on portal'. request_status_id: Integer status ID. request_priority_id: Integer priority ID. organisation_id: UUID of the client organisation. project_id: UUID of the project. description: Rich HTML description (up to 2MB). request_type_id: Optional ticket type ID. category_id: Optional category ID. assigned_to: Optional user integer ID to assign. reporting_to: Optional reporter user integer ID. due_date: ISO datetime for due date. start_date: ISO datetime for start. estimate: Estimated hours (float).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
due_dateNo
estimateNo
project_idYes
start_dateNo
assigned_toNo
category_idNo
descriptionNo
reporting_toNo
organisation_idYes
request_type_idNo
request_status_idYes
request_priority_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says "Create" and lists parameters; it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, response behavior, or what 'legacy' implies operationally. This is thin for a mutation tool.

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 one clear introductory sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Each line adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers all 13 parameters with useful semantics and the output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. It could be more complete by mentioning how to obtain the IDs or what distinguishes a 'legacy' ticket, but overall it equips an agent to build a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the Args list fills that gap completely. Every parameter gets a meaningful description: UUID for organisation/project, integer IDs, ISO datetime formats, float hours, rich HTML with a 2MB limit, and optionality markers.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Create a legacy support ticket". It explicitly contrasts with EPIC/STORY/TASK/BUG work items, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tool wetrack_create_work_item.

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 phrase "not an EPIC/STORY/TASK/BUG work item" gives a clear exclusion boundary and implies when this tool is appropriate versus the work-item creation sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use policy.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools