Meta Council

Ticket List

ticket_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Page through the caller's tickets on the Meta Council board. The opaque next_cursor is owner- and filter-bound; keep every filter unchanged on the next call. Immutable cursor ordering keeps a stable full-board traversal exact while returned tickets are edited or reordered. Filter by status, assignee, action_type, priority, parent_id (a ticket UUID, or 'none' for root tickets only), or free-text q over title/description. With recursive=true, parent_id must be an owned UUID and all descendants (not the anchor) are returned as one flat, cycle-safe traversal. Session/workflow links are opaque metadata filters, not access grants. Start here to find work, then use ticket_get for detail and ticket_claim to take a ticket.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`limit`	No
`scope`	No	Archived tickets are out of the working set and hidden by default. Archiving never changed their status, so an archived ticket listed under scope='archived' still shows the status it had.	active
`cursor`	No
`status`	No
`assignee`	No
`priority`	No
`parent_id`	No	Parent ticket UUID, or 'none' for roots only.
`recursive`	No
`session_id`	No
`action_type`	No
`workflow_session_id`	No

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?

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the opaque cursor is owner- and filter-bound, immutable cursor ordering ensures stable traversal, recursive mode returns a flat cycle-safe traversal, and session/workflow links are not access grants. These details add significant context not captured by the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose before adding necessary nuance about cursor stability, filters, recursion, and security caveats. Every sentence adds value and avoids redundancy.

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?

The description provides complete context for a list operation: purpose, filtering options, cursor behavior, recursive mode, security caveat, and pointers to sibling tools. With an output schema present, no need to explain return values, and the description covers all relevant aspects.

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 description coverage is only 17%, and the description compensates by explaining key parameters: filters (status, assignee, action_type, priority, parent_id with 'none' for roots), q over title/description, recursive behavior, and cursor semantics. However, it does not add meaningful explanation for 'limit' or go beyond the schema's own description for 'scope', leaving a minor gap.

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 tool pages through the caller's tickets on the Meta Council board, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like ticket_get and ticket_claim, and notes it is the starting point for finding work.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Start here to find work, then use ticket_get for detail and ticket_claim to take a ticket.' It also provides key usage constraints such as keeping filters unchanged for cursor navigation and the requirements for recursive mode, giving clear guidance on appropriate use.

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?