Meta Council

List Saved Views

list_saved_views

Read-onlyIdempotent

List saved ticket views you can open: the stored filter, column, grouping and sort combinations saved by you, plus any shared with a team you belong to. Shared views appear under the active and all scopes and never once archived, because an owner's archive is their own working state. Returns the same payload the web app's saved-view list returns. Requires authentication and the tickets:read scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many views to return. Defaults to 50.
`scope`	No	Which of YOUR OWN views to include: active (the default, excluding archived), archived (your recovery list), or all. Shared views are unaffected by archived and never appear under it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral details, such as how shared views are scoped and the archived state behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose and repetitive, particularly the sentences about shared views and archived scope. It could be condensed to a single clear sentence without losing meaning. The redundancy detracts from conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description mentions the return payload type (same as web app) but lacks details on pagination, potential errors, or the exact structure of the returned data. It is adequate for a simple list operation but not fully complete given the absence of an 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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and scope). The tool description does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema states, so it remains at the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 function: listing saved ticket views, including both personal and shared views. It specifies the resource (saved views) and the action (list), making it distinct from other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some context about what the tool returns (e.g., shared views, archived behavior) but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like get_saved_view. It implies usage for listing all accessible views but lacks explicit guidance.

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?