Meta Council

Create Portfolio Snapshot Note

create_portfolio_snapshot_note

Record a decision or comment against one of YOUR OWN portfolio snapshots. Pass expected_content_hash -- the hash you saw when you read the snapshot -- and a mismatch is REFUSED rather than quietly filed against a different revision; that check is the point of this tool. Omitting it still records the note, it just does not assert which revision was on the screen. This writes down what was decided; it does not approve, reject or block anything, and nothing downstream gates on it. Requires authentication and the tickets:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	What was decided or observed.
`kind`	No	Whether this records a decision or an ordinary comment. Defaults to comment.	comment
`snapshot_id`	Yes	The snapshot's id, from list_portfolio_snapshots.
`expected_content_hash`	No	The snapshot's content_hash as you read it. A mismatch is refused.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) are aligned with the description's statement that it writes a note but has no downstream gating. The description also discloses side effects (record creation) and non-effects (no approval/block).

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 well-structured and concise, front-loading the core action and then providing necessary caveats. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy.

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 detailed schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the tool's primary function, key parameter behavior, side effects, and clarifies that it is not part of approval processes. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All four parameters (body, kind, snapshot_id, expected_content_hash) are described in the schema with meaningful defaults and purposes. The description additionally elaborates on expected_content_hash beyond the schema, explaining its role in preventing mismatched revisions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Record a decision or comment against one of YOUR OWN portfolio snapshots.' It distinguishes this from related tools like listing notes or creating snapshots, and specifies the scope (own snapshots).

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 explains when to use the expected_content_hash parameter and its consequence (refusal on mismatch), and clarifies that omitting it still records the note but without revision assertion. It also explicitly notes that the tool does not approve/reject/block anything, helping agents avoid misusing it for approval workflows.

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?