Meta Council

Ticket Archive

ticket_archive

Retire an owned ticket from the working set, or restore one. Archiving is a different axis from status: the ticket keeps whatever status it had, so a done ticket stays done and a blocked one comes back still blocked — never use status 'cancelled' to mean 'archived'. An archived ticket disappears from ticket_list, the stats, the buckets, the attention queue, and outbound JIRA/Linear sync, but keeps its id and URL so citations stay valid, and it refuses edits until restored. Cascades to the active subtree; restore brings back exactly what was archived alongside it. Nothing is destroyed — this is not a delete, and no delete tool is exposed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	No		archive
`ticket_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior: status is preserved, tickets keep id/URL, edits are refused until restored, cascades to the active subtree, and restore brings back exactly what was archived. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the action, then uses a few tightly packed sentences to explain status preservation, side effects, cascade behavior, and non-destructiveness. Every sentence adds unique value with no filler or repetition.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description covers all important invocation context: side effects on listing/statistics/sync, edit refusal, subtree cascade, restore semantics, and relationship to status and delete. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has only ticket_id and action, with 0% schema description coverage. The description explains the two actions ('archive or restore') and refers to 'owned ticket' for ticket_id, but it never explicitly maps parameter names to their meanings or discusses parameter constraints beyond that. It partially compensates with rich behavioral 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?

The description opens with 'Retire an owned ticket from the working set, or restore one,' naming both the action and resource precisely. It also distinguishes archiving from status and from deletion, making its purpose clear relative to sibling ticket tools like ticket_update and ticket_list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-not guidance: 'never use status cancelled to mean archived' and clarifies archiving is a different axis from status. It also warns that archived tickets disappear from ticket_list and sync and that no delete tool is exposed, which helps an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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?