Add a comment to a support ticket by providing the ticket ID, author, and message body to keep the conversation updated.
Add a comment to a ticket.
Args:
ticket_id: The ticket to comment on.
author: Who is writing the comment.
body: The comment text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| ticket_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the action itself and does not describe side effects, whether the ticket must exist, who may comment, or any behavior after the comment is added. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by simple parameter lines. There is no irrelevant content, though the Args section adds limited value beyond the schema.
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?
For a three-parameter write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description reaches a minimum viable level: the purpose and each parameter are understandable. However, it omits behavioral context such as return values, permission requirements, and failure conditions, so it is not complete enough to confidently exploit the tool in varied contexts.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args lines are the only semantics. They do add basic meaning ('author: Who is writing the comment'), but the descriptions are mostly restatements of the parameter names and offer no constraints, examples, or edge-case guidance.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment to a ticket.' This clearly identifies the action and the object, and it is distinct from the sibling tools, which generally handle customer, ticket, assignment, or status operations. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 the alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent gets no context about when a comment is appropriate compared to using create_ticket or change_ticket_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.