Meta Council

Unshare Saved View

unshare_saved_view

Make one of YOUR OWN shared saved views private again. Idempotent. Revocation is immediate: team membership is resolved on every read and never copied into a grant, so this takes effect on each member's next request. Requires authentication and the tickets:write scope.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "view_id": "<view_id>"
    },
    "name": "unshare_saved_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view_id`	Yes	The view's id, from list_saved_views.
`expected_revision`	No	Current definition_revision, required to configure a scorecard or change any previously enrolled view. On conflict or uncertain reply, read current state and deliberately reconcile; this is not an exact-retry receipt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_revision

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Current definition_revision, required to configure a scorecard or change any previously enrolled view. On conflict or uncertain reply, read current state and deliberately reconcile; this is not an exact-retry receipt.",
+  "maximum": 2147483647,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "text"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

AddedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description asserts 'Idempotent', but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct contradiction of a behavioral trait. While the revocation-timing and auth details are genuinely useful, contradicting the structured hint is disqualifying under the scoring 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by idempotency, revocation timing, and auth requirements in four tight sentences with little filler. The content is well ordered, though the contradiction taints one of the sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational concerns: ownership scope, auth requirement, required scope, and revocation latency. It omits any return-value indication and the idempotency claim is inconsistent, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents view_id (from list_saved_views) and expected_revision (conflict/reconciliation semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: reverting a saved view to private. The 'YOUR OWN shared' qualifier scopes it precisely and separates it from siblings like share_saved_view, archive_saved_view and delete_saved_view. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Preconditions are made explicit ('YOUR OWN shared saved views', authentication, tickets:write scope), which tells the agent when this call is valid. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?