Meta Council

List Portfolio Snapshot Notes

list_portfolio_snapshot_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the decision and comment thread recorded against one of your portfolio snapshots, oldest first. Each note carries the snapshot content hash it was written against plus binding_intact comparing that hash to the snapshot's hash now, so a note can be read as evidence of what was actually on the screen when it was written. Counts are over the notes actually returned, so a truncated page never reports a total it did not show. This reads the thread; it does not approve, reject or block anything. Requires authentication and the tickets:read scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many notes to return. Defaults to 100.
`snapshot_id`	Yes	The snapshot's id, from list_portfolio_snapshots.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: notes are returned oldest first, each note carries the snapshot content hash plus binding_intact for evidence, and count fields reflect only returned notes so truncated pages don't misreport totals. It also discloses authentication and scope requirements.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds unique value: purpose, evidence semantics, count behavior, non-mutation, and required scope. There is no filler or 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 simple parameter set, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers ordering, evidence provenance, pagination count behavior, permissions, and non-mutating nature—enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining count semantics under pagination/truncation and clarifying that snapshot_id refers to 'one of your portfolio snapshots,' which supports correct usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the decision and comment thread recorded against one of your portfolio snapshots, oldest first.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_portfolio_snapshots (which lists snapshots themselves) and from approval/mutation tools.

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 this tool: to read a decision/comment thread for a specific snapshot. It also explicitly states what it does not do—'does not approve, reject or block anything'—and notes the required tickets:read scope. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the exclusion is helpful.

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?