Skip to main content
Glama

zendesk

by io.usefulapi

Search

zendesk_search
Read-only

Unified search across tickets, users, organizations and groups using Zendesk search syntax. Examples: type:ticket status:open, type:user email:jane@acme.com, type:organization name:acme. Zendesk REST: GET /search.json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for offset pagination.
queryYesZendesk search query, e.g. 'type:ticket status:open priority:high' (required).
sort_byNoField to sort by.
sort_orderNoSort direction: asc or desc (default desc).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only safety aspect. The description adds valuable behavioral context with query syntax examples and the REST endpoint, aiding the agent in constructing valid queries beyond what the annotation provides.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by useful examples and the REST endpoint. Every sentence contributes substantive information with no 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?

The description covers the core query syntax and the unified search scope, and the 'page' parameter description addresses pagination. There's no output schema, but the return format is intuitive for a search tool; a minor gap is the lack of explicit result format details.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the 'query' parameter by offering multiple concrete examples using Zendesk syntax across different entity types, exceeding the schema's single example and clarifying how to combine filters.

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 'Unified search across tickets, users, organizations and groups' with a specific verb 'search' and clear resource scope. It effectively distinguishes from sibling zendesk_search_users by covering multiple entity types.

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 for when to use the tool: for cross-entity searching, with concrete examples for tickets, users, and organizations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like zendesk_search_users for user-only searches, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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