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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "view_id": "<view_id>"
    },
    "name": "archive_saved_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view_id`	Yes	The view's id, from list_saved_views.
`expected_revision`	No	Current definition_revision, required to configure a scorecard or change any previously enrolled view. On conflict or uncertain reply, read current state and deliberately reconcile; this is not an exact-retry receipt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_revision

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Current definition_revision, required to configure a scorecard or change any previously enrolled view. On conflict or uncertain reply, read current state and deliberately reconcile; this is not an exact-retry receipt.",
+  "maximum": 2147483647,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "text"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

AddedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description directly asserts 'Idempotent -- archiving twice keeps the original archive time', but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. That is a contradiction of a structured behavioral hint, and per the rubric a contradicting description scores 1. The remaining disclosure (non-destructive, keeps definition, auth + tickets:write scope, does not hide from a shared team) is genuinely valuable, but the idempotency claim conflicts with the declared hint.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the effect and reversibility, then the alternatives, then idempotency, then scope caveats and auth. Every clause carries information; 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?

Covers reversibility, sibling routing, shared-view scope, auth and required scope - complete enough for a mutation tool with no output schema. The one soft spot is that the idempotency statement is inconsistent with the declared hint, so the agent's picture of repeat-call behavior is not fully reliable.

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 view_id and expected_revision are already fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the implicit ownership constraint ('YOUR OWN') and nothing about the optimistic-concurrency parameter, so it does not add meaning 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('retire one of YOUR OWN saved views') and immediately distinguishes the operation from its siblings by naming delete_saved_view, restore_saved_view and execute_saved_view. An agent can tell exactly what this does and does not do without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer this over delete_saved_view', plus the consequences that make that choice concrete (drops out of default listing, execute_saved_view refuses it) and the restore path. It also sets the ownership boundary by stating this is the caller's own working state.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?