TDX MCP Server

tdx-ticket-add-contact

Add a person as a contact to a TeamDynamix (TDX) ticket for improved communication and collaboration in IT service management workflows.

Instructions

Add a contact to a TDX ticket

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "tdx-ticket-add-contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appId`	No	TDX app ID (defaults to env TDX_APP_ID)
`id`	Yes	Ticket ID
`uid`	Yes	Person UID to add as contact

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's an 'Add' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the contact addition is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Add' entails operationally, what the result looks like, error conditions, or system behavior. Given the complexity of modifying ticket data, more context is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'id' and 'uid' are required (which the schema already states). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and target ('a contact to a TDX ticket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tdx-ticket-add-asset' beyond the resource type (contact vs asset), missing explicit sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for adding contacts, or when other tools (like 'tdx-ticket-update') might be more appropriate.

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