freescout_analyze_ticketAnalyze a FreeScout ticket to reveal its issue type, root cause, and a suggested solution.
Analyze a FreeScout ticket to determine issue type, root cause, and suggested solution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket | Yes | Ticket ID, ticket number, or FreeScout URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "attachments": {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "codeSnippets": {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "customerEmail": {
- "format": "email",
- "pattern": "^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "customerName": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "errorMessages": {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "hasAttachments": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "isBug": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "isReproducible": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "isThirdPartyIssue": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "issueDescription": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "rootCause": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "suggestedSolution": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "testedByTeam": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "ticketId": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "ticketId",
- "customerName",
- "customerEmail",
- "issueDescription",
- "hasAttachments",
- "attachments",
- "codeSnippets",
- "errorMessages",
- "isReproducible",
- "testedByTeam",
- "isBug",
- "isThirdPartyIssue"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the analysis intent but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it can modify a ticket, what input formats are actually accepted beyond the schema hint, or how its output is returned.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or tangential information. Every word contributes to communicating the tool's purpose.
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?
The description is enough to recognize the tool's core purpose and names three kinds of output, which is minimal viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits important operational context like side effects, response shape, and when to select this tool instead of a retrieval-focused sibling.
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 only parameter, 'ticket', is already fully described in the schema as 'Ticket ID, ticket number, or FreeScout URL'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and names both the resource ('FreeScout ticket') and the output scope ('issue type, root cause, and suggested solution'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that get, update, search, or add notes to tickets.
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 implies it should be used when a ticket needs diagnosis, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over freescout_get_ticket or freescout_get_ticket_context, nor does it describe exclusions or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.