Meta Council

Get Ticket Burndown

get_ticket_burndown

Read-onlyIdempotent

Daily burndown series replayed from the append-only ticket ledger: per-day scope (existing, non-cancelled), remaining, done levels plus added/completed flows, with a summary. Optionally scope to one epic's current subtree via root_id. Backfill (legacy_snapshot) rows seed state but never count as additions. days clamps to 7-180 (default 30). Optionally pass target_date to overlay a straight-line plan: an ideal series descending from the window-start remaining to zero on that date, for reading actual against plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No
`root_id`	No
`target_date`	No	Optional plan-line end date, YYYY-MM-DD. Must be strictly after the window start. Omitting it leaves the output exactly as it is without a plan line.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only/idempotent, but the description adds crucial non-obvious behavior: backfill rows seed state but never count as additions, and the daily series is replayed from a ledger. These details go beyond the annotation hints and prevent misinterpretation.

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 uses five sentences, each covering a distinct aspect: core series, root_id scoping, backfill semantics, day clamping, and target_date plan overlay. There is no filler or repetition; the primary function is front-loaded.

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?

Despite an existing output schema, the description explains the ledger-replay mechanism, definition of scope (existing, non-cancelled), and backfill handling. All optional parameters are behaviorally specified, making the tool self-contained for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only target_date has a description), yet the description fully defines all three parameters: days default and clamping, root_id epic-subtree scoping, and target_date plan-line behavior. This compensates for the sparse schema and gives agents exact parameter meaning.

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 begins with 'Daily burndown series replayed from the append-only ticket ledger,' specifying the exact output components (scope, remaining, done, added/completed flows). It clearly distinguishes this analytics tool from siblings like get_ticket_projects or ticket_list.

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 description gives clear context for when to use optional parameters: root_id scopes to an epic subtree, target_date overlays a plan line, and days clamps to 7–180. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the purpose is unambiguous among the sibling set.

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?