Meta Council

Create Portfolio Snapshot

create_portfolio_snapshot

Capture an immutable rollup of YOUR OWN ticket portfolio as it stands right now -- totals by status and priority, fixed at this moment and never recomputed. A snapshot is the durable 'here is where we were' that a later diff_portfolio_snapshots measures movement against, so capture one before a review rather than after. Snapshots cannot be edited or deleted once taken. The snapshot records the credential that captured it, so one taken by an agent is attributable as such. Requires authentication and the tickets:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No	Optional human label, e.g. the review it was taken for. Omitted leaves the snapshot unlabelled.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses critical behaviors not captured by annotations: the snapshot is immutable and cannot be edited/deleted, it records the credential of the capturer (attributability), and it never recomputes. Since annotations are sparse (no hints beyond non-readOnly), the description carries the weight and does so effectively. Minor deduction for not detailing output format, but output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then explains immutability and use-case. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits in a few sentences.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (one optional param, output schema exists, strong annotations), the description is complete. It covers the key aspects an agent needs: what it does, why it's useful, when to use it, constraints, and auth scope. There's no gap that would hinder correct invocation.

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 the description adds no new detail on the 'label' parameter, but it does mention 'Omitted leaves the snapshot unlabelled' which clarifies optionality. The description's focus on purpose over parameters is acceptable given the single optional param is well-documented in 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?

The description clearly states the action (capture an immutable rollup) and the resource (your own ticket portfolio), with specific details on what it includes (totals by status and priority) and its immutable nature. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like diff_portfolio_snapshots and get_portfolio_snapshot by emphasizing the snapshot's fixed, non-recomputed nature.

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 explicitly recommends when to use this tool ('capture one before a review rather than after') and implies when not to use it (for comparisons, use diff_portfolio_snapshots). It also notes that snapshots cannot be edited/deleted, which sets expectations for usage. This is strong guidance beyond basic description.

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?