Meta Council

Get Deal Health

get_deal_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Health scores for the caller's OPEN deals: each scored 0-100 on how likely it is to be slipping (healthy >= 70 / watch / at_risk), worst first, with plain-language reasons — days since last logged contact, whether it is past its own expected close date, and how its age compares to the caller's average won-deal cycle. Includes per-band counts, an average score, and the reference cycle. Read-only and deterministic over the caller's own deals + activities; nothing is executed or sent. Pair with get_sales_recommendations to act on what is slipping. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical details: deterministic over caller's own deals+activities, nothing executed or sent. Fully consistent with annotations and enriches understanding.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and systematically details scoring, ranking, reasons, and output components. Every phrase adds value with zero 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema referenced, the description is complete: explains scoring logic, ranking order, reasons included (last contact, close date, age vs cycle), and output summary (per-band counts, average score, reference cycle). No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info needed. It implicitly clarifies the scope (caller's OPEN deals). Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description exceeds by providing context about scope.

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 it returns health scores for the caller's OPEN deals, with specific scoring details (0-100, bands, reasons). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_deal' (single deal) and 'get_sales_recommendations' (recommendations to act on slipping).

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?

Explicitly states the tool is read-only, deterministic, and does not execute or send anything. Provides guidance to pair with 'get_sales_recommendations' for action, offering a clear alternative. Implicitly advises when to use: for assessing deal health.

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?