Meta Council

Share Saved View

share_saved_view

Share one of YOUR OWN saved views with a single team you belong to. Members may read, list and execute it; only you may revise, re-share or delete it. Executing a shared view runs it against the READER's own tickets, so this shares the question and never the answers. Re-sharing to a different team MOVES the view rather than adding a second grant -- a view is readable by at most one team. Note: team ids are not currently discoverable from this MCP surface, so supply one you already hold. Requires authentication and the tickets:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team_id`	Yes	The id of a team you belong to. Sharing with a team you are not a member of is refused.
`view_id`	Yes	The view's id, from list_saved_views.
`expected_revision`	No	Current definition_revision, required to configure a scorecard or change any previously enrolled view. On conflict or uncertain reply, read current state and deliberately reconcile; this is not an exact-retry receipt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_revision

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Current definition_revision, required to configure a scorecard or change any previously enrolled view. On conflict or uncertain reply, read current state and deliberately reconcile; this is not an exact-retry receipt.",
+  "maximum": 2147483647,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "text"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

AddedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the read/list/execute vs. revise/re-share/delete permission split, that execution runs against the reader's own tickets, that re-sharing MOVES rather than adds a grant (view readable by at most one team), and the team-id discoverability limitation.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the routing fact, then permissions, execution semantics, the move-not-add surprise, and the auth requirement. No filler.

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?

No output schema and only coarse annotations, but the description covers scope requirements, permission model, side effects, and the key operational gotcha (team-id sourcing), which is everything an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by warning that team ids are not discoverable from this MCP surface and must be supplied from elsewhere, which is not stated in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Share ... saved views with a single team') and immediately differentiates the operation from siblings like create_saved_view, update_saved_view, and unshare_saved_view by scoping it to 'YOUR OWN' views and one team.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (must own the view, must belong to the team, needs tickets:write scope) and the consequence of misuse. It stops short of explicitly naming revoke/re-share alternatives (unshare_saved_view), so a 4 rather than 5.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?