Retrieve support ticket details by providing its ID, enabling quick access to ticket information.
Look up a support ticket by its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| scan | No | ||
| tool_name | Yes | ||
| blocked_reason | No | ||
| confirmation_required | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety expectations. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., side effects or return behavior), but it does not contradict the annotations either. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup operation and contains no redundant words or irrelevant information.
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?
While the description is clear for a basic lookup, it omits details about the return value (e.g., whether it returns the full ticket object or just a summary) and any potential edge cases like not found behavior. Given that the tool has an output schema, some return context would be expected for completeness, but the simplicity of the operation keeps this at a moderate level.
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 fully documents the single parameter (ticket_id, string, required), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as expected format, example values, or how to obtain the ID. Since the schema already covers the basics, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action ('Look up'), the resource ('support ticket'), and the lookup key ('by its id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge_base and escalate_ticket, which have different purposes.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used when the ticket ID is already known, nor does it contrast with search or fetch tools. Users are left to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.