Meta Council

Ticket Update

ticket_update

Update fields on an owned ticket — status moves (each one is auto-logged to the ticket's audit trail), reassignment, priority/effort/action_type recommendations, title/description edits, safe reparenting, opaque session/workflow links, effort points, order, and user-owned external refs. Clear flags are explicit so stdio clients never lose JSON nulls. System-owned provider, Accounting, plan, and batch refs are preserved and cannot be spoofed. The authenticated API-key UUID is stamped on the audit trail. Epic completion and terminal reopen fail closed on this generic tool until an explicit lifecycle operation supplies retry/version evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No
`effort`	No
`labels`	No
`status`	No	Task moves are audited. Epic done or terminal reopen requires an explicit lifecycle operation with retry/version evidence.
`assignee`	No
`priority`	No
`parent_id`	No
`ticket_id`	Yes
`session_id`	No
`action_type`	No
`description`	No
`order_index`	No
`clear_parent`	No
`external_ref`	No
`clear_session`	No
`effort_points`	No
`acceptance_criteria`	No
`clear_effort_points`	No
`workflow_session_id`	No
`clear_workflow_session`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: status moves are audited, clear flags handle nulls explicitly, system-owned refs are preserved, and API-key UUID is stamped on the audit trail. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and includes a long run-on sentence listing many fields. It could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation between different parameter groups. The front-loading is adequate but the overall readability suffers.

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?

For a tool with 20 parameters, nested objects, and output schema, the description covers audit logging, null handling, preservation of system fields, and authentication. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings and does not detail nested parameter format, but overall provides substantial context.

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?

With only 5% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing parameter categories and their behaviors (e.g., 'status moves are auto-logged', 'clear flags are explicit'), but it does not explain individual parameters like effort_points or acceptance_criteria in depth.

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 explicitly states 'Update fields on an owned ticket' and enumerates specific operations (status moves, reassignment, edits, etc.), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like ticket_create or ticket_get.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions that 'Epic completion and terminal reopen fail closed on this generic tool until an explicit lifecycle operation supplies retry/version evidence,' but does not name the specific alternative tool or provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. its siblings.

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?