Meta Council

Ticket Plan

ticket_plan

Preview or idempotently commit an owner-private ticket tree generated from a planning prompt or supplied structured plan. Requires tickets:write. A preview without a supplied plan invokes the planner model and additionally requires councils:run; supplied-plan preview and commit are provider-free and need only tickets:write. Preview is non-mutating and returns the normalized commit payload, an exact preview_token, and deterministic predicted ticket IDs as JSON. To commit, combine that commit_payload with mode=commit, the caller-held idempotency_key, and that exact preview_token; the response returns the same IDs plus replay status. A caller-stable visible-ASCII idempotency_key is always required. This creates only in-platform planning tickets; it never runs them, sends, publishes, deletes, or changes an external provider.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes
`plan`	No
`model`	No
`prompt`	Yes
`context`	No
`session_id`	No
`auto_assign`	No
`max_tickets`	No
`preview_token`	No	Exact preview_token returned by preview mode.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Caller-stable visible-ASCII key. Reuse only for the exact same operation and payload.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts annotations: it states 'idempotently commit' while the idempotentHint annotation is false. Despite providing many behavioral details (non-mutating preview, no external changes), this contradiction warrants a score of 1 per evaluation rules.

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?

The description is thorough but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat long. It is well-structured with clear sections.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, two modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects: modes, required fields, permissions, and limitations. However, it lacks details on some parameters and the plan structure beyond the schema.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It explains mode, plan, preview_token, and idempotency_key semantics well, but omits several parameters (model, context, session_id, auto_assign, max_tickets). Partial compensation results in a middle score.

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's purpose: 'Preview or idempotently commit an owner-private ticket tree generated from a planning prompt or supplied structured plan.' It specifies the verb (preview/commit), resource (ticket tree), and scope (owner-private), distinguishing it from siblings like ticket_create or ticket_batch_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?

The description provides guidelines for when to use preview vs commit, including permissions required ('tickets:write', 'councils:run' for preview without plan). It explains the idempotency_key and preview_token requirements. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with other ticket-related siblings or state when not to use it.

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?