Meta Council

Archive Saved View

archive_saved_view

Retire one of YOUR OWN saved views without destroying it: it drops out of the default listing and execute_saved_view refuses it, but its definition is kept and restore_saved_view brings it back unchanged. Prefer this over delete_saved_view. Idempotent -- archiving twice keeps the original archive time. Archiving is your own working state and does not hide the view from a team it is shared with. Requires authentication and the tickets:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view_id`	Yes	The view's id, from list_saved_views.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Idempotent' while annotations set idempotentHint: false, which is a direct contradiction. This undermines trust in the description's behavioral claims. Although it adds useful details like team visibility and auth scope, the contradiction forces a low score.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence adds value (purpose, idempotency, team effect, auth). It is front-loaded with the main action and remains readable, though slightly longer than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is fairly complete, covering idempotency, reversibility, team sharing, and auth. However, the idempotency contradiction creates confusion, and it does not mention what happens if the view is not owned by the caller (e.g., error behavior). This leaves gaps given the available annotations.

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?

The schema already fully documents view_id with a description ('The view's id, from list_saved_views.'), and the description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Retire ... saved views') and precisely states the effect: drops from default listing and execute_saved_view refuses it, but definition is kept. It explicitly distinguishes from delete_saved_view and mentions restore_saved_view, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit usage guidance by saying 'Prefer this over delete_saved_view' and clarifies the scope ('YOUR OWN', team visibility). It also states when not to use (for destructive deletion) and covers idempotency, which helps the agent choose correctly.

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

All Meta Council tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clearly separate overlapping domains (e.g., consulting vs. marketing vs. outreach). Even within the same domain, tools like 'create_consulting_deliverable' and 'create_consulting_document_revision' are unambiguous due to their specific nouns.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., 'create_invoice', 'get_deal', 'list_agents'). The few exceptions like 'locus_determine_from_scores' still adhere to the verb_noun structure and do not break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 124 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for typical MCP use. The tool count far exceeds the '50+ extreme mismatch' threshold, making it nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently navigate or select the right tool without extensive context. Even a large platform should consolidate or expose fewer tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers CRUD and lifecycle operations across at least 10 domains (sales, consulting, marketing, outreach, accounting, workflows, ticketing, API keys, feedback, platform metrics). Each domain appears to have no obvious gaps—e.g., invoicing includes create, update, send, mark paid, void; ticketing includes create, update, archive, dependencies, batch, scenarios, validation.

Resources

Need Help?