freescout_get_ticketFetch a FreeScout ticket by ID or URL and analyze its details, optionally including full conversation threads, to resolve support issues faster.
Fetch and analyze a FreeScout ticket by ID or URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket | Yes | Ticket ID, ticket number, or FreeScout URL | |
| includeThreads | No | Include all conversation threads |
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"v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only fetch operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it explain what 'analyze' entails, return format, or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich in transparency.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and input requirement. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or redundancy.
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?
With two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it fails to clarify the meaning of 'analyze' or how this tool differs from freescout_analyze_ticket, leaving context gaps for a more complex operation.
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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (ticket and includeThreads) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents, just echoing 'by ID or URL'. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.
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 tool fetches and analyzes a FreeScout ticket by ID or URL, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling freescout_analyze_ticket, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like freescout_analyze_ticket or freescout_search_tickets. There is no context about selecting this tool over others, so it falls to 'no guidance' / 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.