Meta Council

Estimate Cost

estimate_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate what a panel or saved workflow would cost before running it: returns a per-agent/per-step price breakdown, the total for the requested number of runs, your remaining quota and platform credit, an honest list of any models the platform could not price, and a go/no-go decision. Reserves nothing, charges nothing, starts nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	What to price: a council panel or a saved workflow.
`runs`	No	How many runs to price (default 1).
`model`	No	Optional single model override applied to every agent or step. A model absent from the pricing catalog is reported in unpriced_models rather than silently priced as the default.
`panel`	No	Panel slug when kind is 'council' (default: 'default').
`workflow`	No	Workflow slug — required when kind is 'workflow'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral clarity with 'Reserves nothing, charges nothing, starts nothing', which explains the operational side-effect-freedom in domain terms. It also discloses honest reporting of unpriced models, going beyond the generic annotation hints.

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 one dense sentence with front-loaded purpose ('Estimate what a panel or saved workflow would cost before running it'), followed by a colon-separated list of outputs and a final safety clause. Every clause earns its place, and it avoids fluff or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids detailing return fields. It covers the tool's scope (pre-run estimation), key output categories, the unpriceable-models edge case, and its non-destructive nature. This is a complete picture for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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% and already includes detailed parameter documentation (e.g., the model parameter explicitly states that absent models are reported in unpriced_models). The description's references to 'per-agent/per-step price breakdown' and 'requested number of runs' vaguely map to the runs parameter but add no new semantic details beyond 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate what a panel or saved workflow would cost before running it'. It also enumerates concrete outputs (per-agent/per-step breakdown, total, quota, credit, unpriced models, go/no-go), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_council or run_workflow.

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 phrase 'before running it' establishes the core use context as a pre-execution cost estimation step. It does not explicitly name alternatives like run_council or run_workflow, nor list when not to use it, but the contrast with running tools is implied clearly enough.

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?