unshare_saved_viewMake 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view_id | Yes | The view's id, from list_saved_views. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: idempotency, immediate revocation mechanism (membership resolved on read, not copied), and required auth scope ('tickets:write'). Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so this description carries the burden and does so excellently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with the main purpose upfront, followed by key behavioral notes. Zero wasted words and logically structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-param tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: ownership constraint, idempotency, immediate effect, and auth requirements. It is fully sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (view_id) with 100% schema coverage, including provenance ('from list_saved_views'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb ('make private') and resource ('shared saved views'), and explicitly restricts to own views, distinguishing it from sibling tools like share_saved_view, archive_saved_view, and delete_saved_view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that it applies only to the user's own shared views, which is a key usage boundary. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it compared to other saved-view tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.