customer-support-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_tickets_tool

Find support tickets by filtering on status, priority, customer ID, or result limit. Retrieve only the tickets that match your criteria to review or act on them.

Instructions

List tickets with optional filters. Use this to find tickets matching criteria.

Args:
    status: Filter by 'open', 'in_progress', 'resolved', or 'closed'. Omit for all.
    priority: Filter by 'low', 'medium', 'high', or 'urgent'. Omit for all.
    customer_id: Only tickets belonging to this customer.
    limit: Maximum number of tickets to return.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`status`	No
`priority`	No
`customer_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses filter defaults and the limit's meaning, but it does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect status, pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. Since listing is generally low-risk, the gap is moderate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loads purpose, and organizes parameters in an Args block. The opening sentence and the 'Use this to find tickets...' are slightly redundant, but the overhead is minor.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple filterable list with no required fields, the description covers enough of what an agent needs: valid filters, defaults, and maximum count. It omits ordering or explicit pagination, but these are wholly covered by the schema and tool behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply semantics. It fully enumerates the valid status values, priority values, explains customer_id as ticket ownership, and defines limit as maximum returned. This adds value beyond the bare type-only schema.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'list tickets with optional filters'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from singular get_ticket and get_ticket_details tools by using 'list', but it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says 'Use this to find tickets matching criteria' and explains that omitted filters mean all tickets. This is clear context for when to list versus retrieve one ticket. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_ticket_tool, but the guidance is strong.

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

Deploy Server