Skip to main content
Glama
wtf-amnn

customer-support-mcp

by wtf-amnn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

change_ticket_status_tool

Update a support ticket to a new valid status, such as open, in_progress, resolved, or closed, while enforcing allowed workflow transitions.

Instructions

Change a ticket's status. Only valid transitions are allowed.

Valid transitions: open -> in_progress/closed; in_progress -> resolved/open/closed;
resolved -> closed/in_progress; closed is terminal.

Args:
    ticket_id: The ticket to update.
    new_status: One of 'open', 'in_progress', 'resolved', 'closed'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticket_idYes
new_statusYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it explicitly states that only valid transitions are allowed and enumerates the full state machine, including the terminal closed state. It does not mention failure behavior or side effects, but the core behavior is well 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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, followed by a clear transition table and argument glossary. No redundant text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers the key invocation context — target object, allowed status values, and legal transitions. It does not state what happens on invalid transitions or describe the response/error behavior, but the state machine is the essential information for safe use.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions, but the Args section adds meaning: ticket_id identifies the ticket to update, and new_status lists the permitted values. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

States a specific action ('change ticket status') with a named resource and gives a precise transition list. It is clear, but it does not distinguish this generic status tool from sibling tools like resolve_ticket_tool or assign_ticket_tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The transition rules are useful constraints, but there is no mention of resolve_ticket_tool/assign_ticket_tool or any other sibling as a better choice for specific cases.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools