AI Demos Research — the structured-intelligence platform. Every verdict on these pages opens to the execution behind it.
Graded 17 October 2026

Can Zendesk AI show an agent's tool call for inspection?

Zendesk AI passes this observability check: it shows the order-lookup call and lets the operator inspect it. The conversation lists triggered actions as successful, and opening the action details shows the action name, time, and success snapshot; the conversation is also addressable by URL.

1 of 1 test case passed

Every test case in this scenario has a result.

Pass rate100%1 of 1 gradable
Coverage1 of 1test case with a result
1PassDid everything it was expected to do.
0FailNo test case failed.
0Not gradableEvery result here could be graded.
0UntestedEvery test case in this scenario has a result.
The pass rate is a summary. The evidence is the test case below: what we sent, what we checked, what the tool returned, and the proof.

The test case

Each test case is judged on its own: Pass, Fail, Not gradable, or Untested. The scenario result above is based on this test case.

See the order-lookup tool callPassEvidence
What we sent

“Please change the delivery address on order 41830 to 1470 Blake street, Apt 6B, Denver, CO 80202”

What the tool returned

Your delivery address has been changed successfully for order 41830.

Transcribed from Proof 1 · Screen recording at 0:48

Every message the tool sent, in order (3)
  1. Response 1

    Hey there, how can I help you today?

  2. Final response

    The final response, printed above.

  3. Response 3

    How would you rate your experience?

Expected vs. Found
✓Expected: The product shows that the call happenedFound: The conversation lists two triggered custom actions as Success, and opening the details shows the action name, time, and success snapshot.
Supporting proof
Proof 1Screen recording
Screen recording: the conversation, triggered actions, and action details
Key moments
Open original ↗
Why this result

The case asks whether the tool call can be inspected. The continuous recording covers the conversation list, opened conversation, triggered-actions row, and details panel, so the call is shown and inspectable rather than hidden or absent.

Also observed in this test case

Direct conversation link. The conversation can be opened from its own URL.

Success outcomes shown. The triggered-actions row shows each action as Success, not just that it ran.

Tested by Ajay Vekhande · evidence dated 29 September 2026
Limitations of this result

The opened panel is for the address-change action; the order-lookup call appears in the transcript row.

Configuration and setup

How this tool was set up for the run and what the test needed in place. Each row is a fact from the run's records; a fact the records do not hold is left out, not guessed.

Software that produced the output
Zendesk AI
Build or version
Not exposed by the hosted product
Plan or tier
Suite - Professional Free trial
Surface
Web app
Set up before the run
A conversation with an order-system call had to exist, and the operator had to open the conversation where the agent looked up an order and inspect the tool call.
Request method
PATCH
Authentication connection
cedarline-order-api
Tested
29 September 2026 · Ajay Vekhande

How this scenario is graded

How we decide Pass, Fail and Not gradable. The same rules apply to every tool tested on this scenario.

How results are decided

Each test case gets one result per tool: Pass, Fail or Not gradable. A test case we haven't run yet shows Untested. There are no partial results.

The rules
  • Pass: the tool did everything the test expected, and nothing it said contradicts the correct answer.
  • Fail: at least one expected behaviour clearly didn't happen; the test case's result says which one and quotes the tool.
  • Not gradable: our evidence couldn't settle the outcome (for example a record we needed is missing). It is never counted as a fail, and the test case's result says what's missing.

Where this sits in the benchmark

This page is one cell of a larger study: one tool, one scenario. Only this benchmark's frame appears here.

History of this result

What has happened to this result since it was first published. Runs and grades are never overwritten: a retest or a re-grade publishes a new result and keeps the earlier one readable.

from the publication record
2 November 2026First publishedAI Customer Support Chatbots v1

Act on this result

Nothing filed here edits the run or the grade. A challenge opens a review, and a review can produce a new run or a re-grade — which becomes the current result and leaves this one in the history.

This matches what I see

You run the same kind of test against your own setup and get the same behaviour.

Agree →
This does not match

Yours behaves differently. Tell us what you got, with a screenshot if you have one.

Disagree →
Point out an issue

Something here is wrong — a reference value, a transcription, a grade.

Report an issue →
Request a retest

On a newer build, a larger dataset, or your own setup.

Request a retest →
We have fixed this

Tell us what changed and we schedule a rerun of the failing test case. The old result stays as history.

Vendor notice →
Filed against this evidenceNothing yet. Challenges, counter-evidence and fix notices appear here with their outcome, and stay on the page after they are resolved.
Cite this result
aidemos.com/benchmarks/ai-customer-support-chatbots/results/zendesk/agent-actions-tool-calls-can-be-inspected · 1 pass · 0 fail · coverage 1/1 · graded 2026-10-17

The same record is available as structured data through the AI Demos MCP server, with the counts, the coverage and every per-test-case reason carried as fields.

Verify the proof files

These files support this result. Open a file to inspect the original evidence.

File fingerprints (SHA-256)

A fingerprint identifies the exact file used for this result.

Proof 1 · Screen recording85cf3f92ca6d6dd18842584991a5d415f7ba141179c2aa70a0f953e7a30ec3dd