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. A lost reply may have committed; this write has no replay key and must not be automatically retried. 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotentHint=false, destructive=true-not-set) by disclosing that a lost reply may have committed, there is no replay key, and the write must not be auto-retried. It also states the auth and tickets:write scope requirement and that nothing downstream gates on the note.

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?

Multiple tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the hash-check rationale following immediately. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational meaning; slightly long for a single write tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the safety-relevant behavior an agent needs: auth/scope, retry hazard, refusal semantics, and the no-gating guarantee. Nothing material to invoking it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: it explains why expected_content_hash exists (revision assertion) and what happens when it is omitted. It adds value beyond the schema's 'a mismatch is refused' by clarifying the omission path.

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 specific verb (record) and resource (portfolio snapshot note) and scopes it to the user's own snapshots. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_portfolio_snapshot_notes (read) and create_portfolio_snapshot (creates the snapshot itself, not a note).

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?

Gives clear context: use it to record a decision/comment, and it explicitly does not approve/reject/block. It explains the conditional behavior of expected_content_hash (pass it to assert revision, omit it to merely record). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool, so it falls just below a 5.

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?