Meta Council

Create Monitor

create_monitor

Save a standing watch that fires later, on its own: when a count you name crosses a line you set, do the thing you chose. Lets an agent bank a condition and stop polling for it. The watch survives the conversation that created it. Note that start_workflow spends the account's credits unattended each time it fires, so the cooldown is the only thing bounding what it costs. Requires authentication, a Pro or Enterprise account, and the monitors:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human label for the watch, e.g. 'Backlog over 50'.
`action`	Yes	What to do when the condition holds.
`subject`	Yes	Which of your counts to watch.
`threshold`	Yes	The line the count must cross.
`comparator`	Yes	How the count is compared against threshold.
`action_config`	No	Settings for the chosen action. start_workflow needs workflow_slug; notify_slack needs message.
`status_filter`	No	Optional: count only rows in this status, e.g. 'todo'. Omit to count them all.
`cooldown_seconds`	No	Minimum gap between firings. Defaults to 3600. Values below one scheduler tick are raised to 60, and the stored value reflects that.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only include generic hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the monitor persists beyond the conversation and that it fires autonomously (unattended), and warns about credit costs and cooldown bounding. This is valuable transparency beyond the schema. It could mention how to delete or stop, but that's a minor gap.

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 concise and well-written, using accessible language. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds necessary caveats about cost. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, with no fluff.

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 tool is moderately complex with 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. The description covers the core behavior, persistence, and cost implications, but it doesn't mention the output format or how to later manage the monitor (e.g., delete, list). Given the output schema and full schema documentation, this is largely complete, but a bit more on lifecycle management would be ideal.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents parameters. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of the monitor overall, but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. The nested action_config is clearly described in the schema, so the description's mention is not additional insight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool creates a persistent monitor (a standing watch) that triggers an action when a condition is met, distinguishing it from other 'create' tools. It explicitly mentions the key use case of banking a condition to avoid polling, which differentiates it from generic creation tools.

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 explains the primary use case (avoiding polling) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It implies that this tool is for long-running conditions, but doesn't compare it to other monitoring or workflow tools. However, it does clarify that start_workflow has cost implications, which helps with usage decisions.

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?