Meta Council

Ticket Claim

ticket_claim

Claim a ticket to work on: sets assignee to your agent name and moves it to in_progress in one step (the move is audit-logged). Refuses if another agent already has it in progress unless force=true. Follow up with ticket_comment progress updates and finish via ticket_update status='done'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	Take over a ticket another agent holds.
`assignee`	Yes	Your agent name, e.g. 'claude_code_local'.
`ticket_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses mutation behavior (sets assignee, moves to in_progress), audit logging, and force parameter behavior. Annotations are minimal, so description adds value beyond them.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Covers core action, force option, and follow-up steps. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Missing potential error conditions but adequate for a simple claim tool.

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?

Schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description reinforces assignee purpose and force usage but adds nothing for ticket_id. Slight improvement over schema baseline.

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?

Clearly states the verb ('Claim'), resource ('ticket'), and specific actions: sets assignee and moves to in_progress. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ticket_comment, ticket_update, and ticket_create.

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?

Provides a workflow hint: 'Follow up with ticket_comment... and finish via ticket_update...' and explains condition with force=true. Does not explicitly contrast with all alternatives but gives clear 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?