AstroWay Platform

MCP Agent Debate

astroway_mcp_agent_debate

Read-onlyIdempotent

2 personas debate a topic, multi-round transcript.

[Group: MCP Advanced] [Endpoint: POST /v1/mcp/agent-debate] [Required: topic, agentA, agentB] [Cost: 100 credits (Tier 4)]

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": {
      "topic": "<topic>",
      "agentA": "<agentA>",
      "agentB": "<agentB>"
    },
    "name": "astroway_mcp_agent_debate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chart`	No	Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single house-system letter, P by default; a name such as "Placidus" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems.
`topic`	Yes
`agentA`	Yes
`agentB`	Yes
`fields`	No	Compact mode: comma-separated dotted paths to keep, relative to `data`, e.g. "planets.name,planets.longitude,houses.cusp". Omit for the whole response.
`rounds`	No
`language`	No		en
`precision`	No	Compact mode: round fractional numbers to this many decimals. Longitudes carry 14 by default; 2 is finer than any chart is drawn.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transcript`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / chart / properties / ayanamsaId / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / chart / properties / ayanamsaId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedNov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / chart / description

Previous value: -"Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single Swiss Ephemeris letter, P by default; a name such as \"Placidus\" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems."New value: +"Birth data for a single natal chart. Required: date (YYYY-MM-DD), time (HH:mm:ss), latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. The short forms lat, lon, lng and tz are rejected with 400 INVALID_FIELD; pass the full names. timezoneOffset is hours from UTC and defaults to 0, meaning UTC; send timezone instead (an IANA name such as Europe/Kyiv, or auto) and the offset for that date is worked out, summer time included. city is a display label only: nothing here geocodes it, so it never stands in for coordinates. houseSystem is a single house-system letter, P by default; a name such as \"Placidus\" is refused, and the case matters because I and i are two different Sunshine systems."

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the real operational cost (100 credits, Tier 4) and the endpoints, which an agent must know before calling. It still says nothing about whether agentA/agentB must be pre-registered personas, what happens when the rounds cap of 4 is hit, or what the transcript looks like.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the bracketed metadata block is scannable with zero filler prose. The [Required: topic, agentA, agentB] line duplicates what the schema already declares, which is the only small waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex, nested-schema, credit-consuming tool, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. Even so, the description leaves the central mechanic unexplained — who the two agents are and how they are specified — and gives no usage or cost-tradeoff context, which is a large gap for a Tier 4 priced call.

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?

Schema coverage is only 38% across 8 parameters, and the description compensates only by repeating the three required names. The key ambiguities — whether agentA and agentB are persona names, IDs, or free-text character prompts, and whether the nested chart is needed for the debate — are documented nowhere in the schema and not addressed here. The optional chart/rounds/language/precision parameters are left entirely to 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?

"2 personas debate a topic, multi-round transcript" states a concrete action and output artifact, so an agent knows it produces a dialogue rather than a single answer. It never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like astroway_mcp_ai_comparison_coach or astroway_mcp_multi_agent_coordinate, so the four score fits: clear on its own, silent on differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of what kind of question suits a debate rather than a chat or comparison, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The bracketed metadata lists required params and cost, but that is schema restatement, not routing advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AstroWay Platform tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?