Meta Council

Ticket Validation Finalize

ticket_validation_finalize

Idempotent

Finalize one immutable validation run for an exact owned ticket scenario revision. Requires the opt-in tickets:validate scope. The server derives owner and actor only from the authenticated API key. Evidence payloads are bounded opaque JSON objects; locator-looking strings are recorded but never opened, resolved, redirected, or fetched. Exact retries by the same credential actor return the original receipt; a changed actor or changed content under the same key conflicts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runner`	Yes
`summary`	No
`verdict`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`ticket_id`	Yes
`environment`	Yes
`scenario_id`	Yes
`scenario_hash`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`source_revision`	Yes
`scenario_version`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, including how owner/actor are derived, how evidence is handled, and idempotency semantics. It does not contradict the idempotentHint annotation.

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 at four sentences, with no redundant information. Each sentence adds valuable context, and the structure is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description thoroughly covers behavioral aspects and idempotency, it fails to explain the many parameters, which are crucial for correct invocation. The output schema exists but is not mentioned. Given the complexity and 0% schema description coverage, more detail on parameters would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 11 parameters, all without descriptions, and the tool description provides no parameter-specific information. Only general behavior about evidence is noted, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from names alone.

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: 'Finalize one immutable validation run for an exact owned ticket scenario revision.' The verb 'finalize' and resource 'validation run' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from other ticket tools by emphasizing immutability.

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?

The description mentions the required scope and idempotency behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ticket_create or ticket_update. It provides implicit usage context but lacks explicit guidance.

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?