AI Anyone

Stage a debate

debate_two_people

Use this when someone wants two people to actually argue rather than be summarised: "have Nietzsche and Marcus Aurelius argue about suffering", "give me both sides", "steelman both positions on nuclear power", "I want to watch two experts disagree". This runs a live exchange instead of a scripted one. Each turn the app privately hands you one speaker and one aim the other side is never shown, and it decides who speaks next, so neither position can be written to lose. Returns the matchup card, then the whole exchange as a group chat once they are done.

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": {
      "mind_ids": "<mind_ids>",
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "debate_two_people"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	Yes	What they should argue about.
`mind_ids`	Yes	Exactly two person ids, for example ["friedrich-nietzsche", "marcus-aurelius"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the live exchange mechanism, private per-turn speaker/aim assignment, automatic turn order, fairness guarantee, and the return sequence. This gives the agent a strong understanding of what happens during and after the call.

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 front-loaded with usage triggers and then explains mechanics and return behavior in a logical order. It is somewhat example-heavy, but the examples aid routing and the text contains little true filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains that it returns a matchup card followed by the full exchange as a group chat. It is nearly complete for invocation, though it leaves some ambiguity about how this relates to the sibling turn-control tool and does not describe error or duration behavior.

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%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description reinforces that exactly two people are involved and that they debate a topic, but adds no param-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific action clearly: run a live argument between exactly two people on a topic, with concrete examples. It differentiates itself from summarised or scripted exchanges, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as debate_next_turn.

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?

It gives clear triggering contexts such as 'have Nietzsche and Marcus Aurelius argue about suffering' and 'steelman both positions on nuclear power'. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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 AI Anyone 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?