FreeScout MCP Server

Search FreeScout Tickets

freescout_search_tickets

Locate FreeScout tickets by subject, customer email, ticket number, assignee, status, or time. Include last-message preview for quick review.

Instructions

Search for FreeScout tickets with explicit filter parameters. Text search is subject-only (FreeScout has no message-body full-text search): use subject (or its alias textSearch) to match the conversation subject, customerEmail to filter by the customer, and number to look up a single ticket. Use assignee: "unassigned" for unassigned tickets, or assignee: number for a specific user. Supports relative time filters like "7d", "24h". Use includeLastMessage: true to get a preview of the most recent message for each ticket.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`state`	No
`number`	No	Look up a single conversation by its ticket number.
`status`	No
`subject`	No	Filter by conversation subject (partial match).
`assignee`	No
`pageSize`	No
`mailboxId`	No
`textSearch`	No	Alias for `subject`: matches the conversation subject only, not message bodies.
`createdSince`	No
`updatedSince`	No
`customerEmail`	No	Filter by the customer email address on the conversation.
`includeLastMessage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv3.1.0Sep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / customerEmail

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by the customer email address on the conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / number

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Look up a single conversation by its ticket number.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / subject

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by conversation subject (partial match).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / textSearch / description

Added value: +"Alias for `subject`: matches the conversation subject only, not message bodies."

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.1Aug 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv2.1.1Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does this well: it explicitly calls out FreeScout's subject-only search limitation, explains the `textSearch` alias, documents relative time filter formats, and states what `includeLastMessage: true` does. It does not cover all edge cases, but the key non-obvious behaviors are disclosed.

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 compact paragraph with no filler. Every sentence adds distinct information: search scope, the subject-only limitation, filter semantics, time filter syntax, and message-preview behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently elaborates.

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 the tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary query modes well but leaves gaps. It does not describe the return shape, default pagination behavior, or the meaning of `state`, `status`, and `mailboxId`, so an agent may still be uncertain about outputs and some filter combinations. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 31%, so the description must compensate, and it meaningfully does so. It explains the relationship between `subject` and `textSearch`, clarifies `assignee` values ('unassigned' vs a user number), and adds semantic value for time filters and `includeLastMessage`. Some parameters like `mailboxId`, `state`, `status`, `page`, and `pageSize` remain undocumented, but the most behaviorally important parameters are covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Search for FreeScout tickets.' It goes on to clarify the exact scope of the search (subject-only, no message-body full-text), which sharply distinguishes this from related 'get' and 'analyze' sibling tools. An agent can reliably tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives practical how-to guidance: use `subject`/`textSearch` for subject, `customerEmail` for customer, `number` for a single ticket, and `assignee` for unassigned/specific users. However, it never explicitly compares this tool with siblings like `freescout_get_ticket`, and it does not state when NOT to use this tool, leaving tool-selection decisions to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Search FreeScout Tickets

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools