Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
On Board

On Board

by swisspra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_terminate_ticket

DestructiveIdempotent

Forcefully terminate a ticket at any stage to stop progress. Only the creator or active main/reviewer may perform this action.

Instructions

Forcefully terminate a ticket at any stage. Creator or active main/reviewer only.

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": {
      "agent_name": "<agent_name>",
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_terminate_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNo
ticket_idYes
agent_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.0.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description adds that this is 'forceful' and allowed 'at any stage', plus the auth constraint 'Creator or active main/reviewer only', which are useful behavioral disclosures. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states purpose, the second adds the permission constraint, earning a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a destructive tool with 3 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is too brief; it omits the 'reason' parameter and does not clarify what 'active main/reviewer' means, relying on domain knowledge. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'agent_name', 'ticket_id', or 'reason' parameters. The only hint is the permission phrase which relates to 'agent_name', but it does not explicitly map parameters or clarify the 'reason' field.

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 uses the specific verb 'terminate' with resource 'ticket' and qualifies with 'forcefully' and 'at any stage', clearly distinguishing from the sibling 'memory_cancel_ticket'. It states exactly what the tool does.

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?

States the permission restriction 'Creator or active main/reviewer only' and implies this is for forceful termination at any stage, but does not explicitly name when to use this versus 'memory_cancel_ticket' or mention alternatives.

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