Skip to main content
Glama

zendesk

by io.usefulapi

Create ticket

zendesk_create_ticket
Destructive

MUTATING: create a new support ticket. subject and comment_body are required; the comment becomes the ticket's first message. Zendesk REST: POST /tickets.json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTags to set on the ticket.
typeNoType: problem | incident | question | task.
statusNoStatus: new | open | pending | hold | solved | closed.
subjectYesTicket subject/title (required).
group_idNoGroup id to assign the ticket to.
priorityNoPriority: urgent | high | normal | low.
assignee_idNoAgent id to assign the ticket to.
comment_bodyYesBody of the ticket's first comment (required).
requester_idNoUser id of the ticket requester.
comment_publicNoWhether the first comment is public (default true).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'MUTATING'. It adds behavioral detail that the comment becomes the ticket's first message and specifies the REST endpoint. No contradiction; description adds value beyond the annotation.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the MUTATING label, required fields, comment semantics, and REST endpoint. No redundant filler.

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?

With full schema coverage and a simple create operation, the description covers essential usage context. It lacks return value details, but there is no output schema and the tool's behavior is fairly self-evident. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only highlights that subject and comment_body are required, which is already in the schema, and adds the comment-to-first-message semantic. No additional parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'create a new support ticket' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_ticket and add_ticket_comment by noting the comment becomes the first message, which is unique to new ticket creation.

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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for creating new tickets and notes the required fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list implies other operations for existing tickets, and the 'MUTATING' hint clarifies the action.

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

All zendesk toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but zendesk_search_users overlaps with zendesk_search (which can search users with type:user), and zendesk_update_ticket can also add a comment, overlapping with zendesk_add_ticket_comment. These create minor ambiguity but are clarified by descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use a consistent 'zendesk_' prefix and snake_case, but naming patterns deviate slightly: zendesk_current_user lacks a 'get_' verb, and zendesk_execute_view uses 'execute' instead of 'list' or 'get'. Overall, the conventions are mostly uniform and readable.

Tool Count5/5

19 tools is on the higher end but each corresponds to a distinct Zendesk API endpoint or operation. The count is well-scoped for a server covering tickets, users, organizations, views, macros, and satisfaction ratings, without excessive redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The ticket lifecycle is well covered (create, get, update, comment, list, search, metrics, views), and listing entities like orgs, groups, macros, and fields is supported. Minor gaps exist for user/organization updates and a plain list_users tool, but these are not critical for core support workflows.

Resources