Meta Council

Run Council

run_council

Submit a question or decision to Meta Council. A panel of specialized AI agents will independently analyze it, then a synthesis step combines their opinions into a unified recommendation with full transparency. Starts asynchronously by default; use get_session with the returned session id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	No	Model to use (e.g., 'claude-sonnet-4-6', 'gpt-4o', 'deepseek-chat'). Omit to use user's default.
`panel`	No	Panel slug to use (e.g., 'default', 'technology', 'healthcare'). Use 'auto' for automatic panel selection. Omit to use default panel.
`query`	Yes	The question or decision to analyze
`wait_seconds`	No	Optional synchronous wait (0-90 seconds). Default 0 returns the session id immediately, avoiding reverse-proxy timeouts.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: async start, multi-agent analysis, synthesis, transparency. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and process, followed by actionable usage hint. No wasted words.

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?

Complete for a tool of this complexity: covers what it does, how it works (asynchronous, multi-agent), and how to retrieve results. Output schema likely handles return values.

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%, but description adds meaning: explains async/sync behavior tied to wait_seconds, and frames parameters (panel, model) within the council process. Baseline 3, plus extra context.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Submit' and resource 'Meta Council', explains the process of independent analysis by AI agents and synthesis into a recommendation. Differentiates from sibling tools which are CRUD, workflow, or outreach related.

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?

Explicitly says 'Starts asynchronously by default; use get_session with the returned session id' and mentions optional synchronous wait via wait_seconds. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but provides clear usage context.

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?