Open a support ticket for the human team when a customer requests a person, files a warranty claim, cancels, or needs help beyond available tools and policies.
Open a ticket for the human support team. Call this when the customer asks for a person, for warranty claims, cancellations, or anything the other tools and policies cannot solve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| summary | Yes | What the customer needs and what was already tried. | |
| priority | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=false — it creates a ticket — and adds useful context that the ticket routes to a human support team. It does not say what happens after escalation (ticket ID returned, expected response time, whether the conversation ends or the customer must be told anything), which matters for a hand-off 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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the usage triggers following. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter hand-off tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what is needed to decide to call it. The remaining gap is post-call behavior — whether a ticket reference comes back and what the agent should tell the customer — which keeps it from being complete.
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?
Only one of two parameters (summary) has schema text, leaving the description to compensate for the 50% coverage gap, which it does not do at all. The undocumented 'priority' is an enum (low/normal/urgent) whose values are largely self-explanatory, so the practical loss is small but guidance on when to use 'urgent' would have been valuable.
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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Open a ticket for the human support team' — that an agent cannot confuse with any sibling (lookup_customer, get_order, issue_refund, etc.). The action and its recipient are stated in the first clause.
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?
It enumerates concrete triggers (customer asks for a person, warranty claims, cancellations) plus an explicit fallback rule: 'anything the other tools and policies cannot solve.' That fallback implicitly tells the agent not to escalate when a sibling tool can resolve the request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.