Meta Council

Ticket Dependency List

ticket_dependency_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the prerequisites an owned ticket waits on. Read-only. Each edge reports satisfied, which is true only when the prerequisite is done, plus active/removed_at/removed_by_actor. Removed edges are omitted unless include_removed is true; they never gate completion, and are readable as history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticket_id`	Yes
`include_removed`	No

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail: 'satisfied' semantics, edge fields, and the behavior of removed edges with include_removed. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, providing meaningful historical/filtering context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds necessary behavioral details. No filler words or redundant content. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior: prerequisite listing, satisfied condition, removal filtering, and history. It doesn't mention pagination, but for a dependency list that is likely negligible.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description explains include_removed's effect in detail. The ticket_id parameter is understood contextually from 'an owned ticket' but could be more explicit. This partially compensates for lacking schema descriptions.

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 the verb (List) and resource (prerequisites of an owned ticket), making it distinct from sibling tools like ticket_dependency_add/remove (mutations) and ticket_get. This precision removes ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: use this to list prerequisites. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., 'for modifying dependencies use ticket_dependency_add/remove'). A clear usage cutoff is missing.

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?