Meta Council

Delete Saved View

delete_saved_view

Permanently delete one of YOUR OWN saved views. UNRECOVERABLE -- there is no undo and the definition is not retained. archive_saved_view is the reversible retirement and is almost always what is wanted instead; use this only for a view that should actually be gone. Deleting a shared view removes it for the team too. Requires authentication and the tickets:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view_id`	Yes	The view's id, from list_saved_views.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description transparently discloses that deletion is permanent and unrecoverable, and mentions authentication requirements. However, the annotation `destructiveHint: false` contradicts this, as deleting a saved view is clearly destructive. This contradiction undermines transparency and warrants a score of 1.

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 succinct yet comprehensive, front-loading the core action and including essential warnings, alternative guidance, shared view implications, and auth requirements in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's destructive nature, the description thoroughly covers the irreversible aspect, suggests a safer alternative, notes the team-wide impact, and specifies authentication and scope needs. It is complete for a tool with this complexity and existing output schema.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, view_id, with a clear explanation of its source (from list_saved_views). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 the tool's purpose: permanently delete a user's own saved view. It also distinguishes from the sibling archive_saved_view by explicitly naming it as a reversible alternative, which differentiates the tool and clarifies its scope.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus archive_saved_view, stating that archive is 'almost always what is wanted instead' and that delete is only for views that should truly be removed. It also warns about the impact on shared views, offering clear exclusions and alternatives.

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?