Meta Council

Sync Accounting Tickets

sync_accounting_tickets

Idempotent

Commit a previously previewed completed Accounting run's WRITEOff work plan to stable owner-private Meta Council tickets. The expected_plan_hash from the preview is required, retries are idempotent, stable references prevent duplicate tickets across reprocessed runs, and human edits to generated content fields are preserved. Status, assignee, hierarchy, and completion are not reset. Requires both accounting:read and tickets:write. This creates or updates only in-platform planning tickets; they are not field-encrypted and become readable through tickets:read without accounting:read. It never files, pays, sends, or publishes anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes
`expected_plan_hash`	Yes	Exact plan_hash returned by preview_accounting_ticket_sync.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are supplemented with details on idempotency, stable references, human edit preservation, lack of reset on status/assignee/hierarchy, and explicit disclaimers (never files/pays/sends/publishes). No contradictions.

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?

Dense single paragraph covers action, inputs, behaviors, auth, and limitations. Front-loaded with main purpose, but could benefit from clearer sentence breaks.

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 complexity and sibling tools, description covers key aspects: idempotency, permissions, what it doesn't do. Output schema exists, so return value details are unnecessary. Slight gap in explaining ticket scope (owner-private Meta Council).

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?

Description adds context that expected_plan_hash must match preview output, but does not elaborate on run_id beyond schema. With 50% schema coverage, it partially compensates.

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 it commits a previewed Accounting run's work plan to Meta Council tickets, with specific verb 'commit' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like preview_accounting_ticket_sync (preview) and ticket_create (generic).

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?

Description implies usage after preview, mentions idempotency and required auth, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond the preview sibling.

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?