Meta Council

Score Locus Case

score_locus_case

Score an anonymized adult mental-health / addiction case against LOCUS. Convenes the LOCUS Assessment Panel (psychiatrist, addiction specialist, clinical social worker, utilization reviewer, peer specialist, safety officer); each reviewer independently rates all six LOCUS dimensions, then a DETERMINISTIC engine aggregates the ratings and applies the Determination Grid and the inviolable override floors IN CODE (safety floors like Risk-of-Harm=4 → Level 5 cannot be reasoned away). Returns the recommended Level of Care with a full audit trail. Adults only (CALOCUS/CASII covers child/adolescent); use ONLY anonymized cases. Starts asynchronously by default; poll get_session. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`case`	Yes	The anonymized clinical case text (presentation, history, substance use, functional status, environment, engagement).
`model`	No	Optional model override; omit for the platform default.
`wait_seconds`	No	Optional synchronous wait; default 0 returns immediately.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is deterministic, async by default with synchronous option, requires authentication, and provides an audit trail. It does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is fairly concise given the complexity, with the core action front-loaded. Some details (e.g., listing all panel roles) could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics. It lacks details on output format, but the output schema provides that.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context for the 'case' parameter (specifying the kind of text) and 'wait_seconds' (synchronous wait), but does not provide information beyond what the schema already offers.

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 specifies the tool scores anonymized adult mental-health/addiction cases against LOCUS, names the six dimensions, mentions the panel and deterministic engine, and distinguishes from child/adolescent tools (CALOCUS/CASII). This differentiates it from siblings like locus_determine_from_scores.

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 advises using only anonymized cases and for adults, implicitly excluding child/adolescent cases. It mentions asynchronous default and requirement for authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives but sets clear scope.

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?