Create a ticket product to categorize and manage support tickets. Supply a product name and optional description to set up a new tracking category.
Create a new ticket product.
Args: name: Product name e.g. 'VTrack Fleet'. description: Optional description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Create' and gives parameter examples; it does not disclose side effects, permissions, uniqueness constraints, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. The Args section is compact and useful, though it could be slightly more structured; overall it wastes no words.
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 two-parameter create tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It documents the parameters and the core action, but lacks any behavioral or usage context, which is more noticeable because annotations are absent.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters in plain language, including an example for name ('VTrack Fleet') and noting that description is optional. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare schema titles.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a new ticket product.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_support_ticket, create_ticket_type, and create_ticket_category.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as create_support_ticket or create_work_item. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.