Gemini MCP Server

# Consensus Tool - Multi-Model Perspective Gathering **Get diverse expert opinions from multiple AI models on technical proposals and decisions** The `consensus` tool orchestrates multiple AI models to provide diverse perspectives on your proposals, enabling structured decision-making through for/against analysis and multi-model expert opinions. ## Thinking Mode **Default is `medium` (8,192 tokens).** Use `high` for complex architectural decisions or `max` for critical strategic choices requiring comprehensive analysis. ## Model Recommendation Consensus tool uses extended reasoning models by default, making it ideal for complex decision-making scenarios that benefit from multiple perspectives and deep analysis. ## How It Works The consensus tool orchestrates multiple AI models to provide diverse perspectives on your proposals: 1. **Assign stances**: Each model can take a specific viewpoint (supportive, critical, or neutral) 2. **Gather opinions**: Models analyze your proposal from their assigned perspective with built-in common-sense guardrails 3. **Synthesize results**: Claude combines all perspectives into a balanced recommendation 4. **Natural language**: Use simple descriptions like "supportive", "critical", or "against" - the tool handles synonyms automatically ## Watch In Action The following is a hypothetical example designed to demonstrate how one consensus can be built upon another (via [continuation](../context-revival.md)). In this scenario, we start with a _blinded_ consensus, where one model is tasked with taking a **for** stance and another with an **against** stance. This approach allows us to see how each model evaluates a particular option relative to the alternative. We then conduct a second consensus — all initiated by a single prompt and orchestrated by Claude Code in this video — to gather each model’s final conclusions. <div style="center"> [Zen Consensus Debate](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/76a23dd5-887a-4382-9cf0-642f5cf6219e) </div> ## Example Prompts **For/Against Analysis:** ``` Use zen consensus with flash taking a supportive stance and pro being critical to evaluate whether we should migrate from REST to GraphQL for our API ``` **Multi-Model Technical Decision:** ``` Get consensus from o3, flash, and pro on our new authentication architecture. Have o3 focus on security implications, flash on implementation speed, and pro stay neutral for overall assessment ``` **Natural Language Stance Assignment:** ``` Use consensus tool with gemini being "for" the proposal and grok being "against" to debate whether we should adopt microservices architecture ``` ``` I want to work on module X and Y, unsure which is going to be more popular with users of my app. Get a consensus from gemini supporting the idea for implementing X, grok opposing it, and flash staying neutral ``` ## Key Features - **Stance steering**: Assign specific perspectives (for/against/neutral) to each model with intelligent synonym handling - **Custom stance prompts**: Provide specific instructions for how each model should approach the analysis - **Ethical guardrails**: Models will refuse to support truly bad ideas regardless of assigned stance - **Unknown stance handling**: Invalid stances automatically default to neutral with warning - **Natural language support**: Use terms like "supportive", "critical", "oppose", "favor" - all handled intelligently - **Sequential processing**: Reliable execution avoiding MCP protocol issues - **Focus areas**: Specify particular aspects to emphasize (e.g., 'security', 'performance', 'user experience') - **File context support**: Include relevant files for informed decision-making - **Image support**: Analyze architectural diagrams, UI mockups, or design documents - **Conversation continuation**: Build on previous consensus analysis with additional rounds - **Web search capability**: Enhanced analysis with current best practices and documentation ## Tool Parameters - `prompt`: Detailed description of the proposal or decision to analyze (required) - `models`: List of model configurations with optional stance and custom instructions (required) - `files`: Context files for informed analysis (absolute paths) - `images`: Visual references like diagrams or mockups (absolute paths) - `focus_areas`: Specific aspects to emphasize - `temperature`: Control consistency (default: 0.2 for stable consensus) - `thinking_mode`: Analysis depth (minimal/low/medium/high/max) - `continuation_id`: Continue previous consensus discussions ## Model Configuration Examples **Basic For/Against:** ```json [ {"model": "flash", "stance": "for"}, {"model": "pro", "stance": "against"} ] ``` **Custom Stance Instructions:** ```json [ {"model": "o3", "stance": "for", "stance_prompt": "Focus on implementation benefits and user value"}, {"model": "flash", "stance": "against", "stance_prompt": "Identify potential risks and technical challenges"} ] ``` **Neutral Analysis:** ```json [ {"model": "pro", "stance": "neutral"}, {"model": "o3", "stance": "neutral"} ] ``` ## Usage Examples **Architecture Decision:** ``` "Get consensus from pro and o3 on whether to use microservices vs monolith for our e-commerce platform" ``` **Technology Migration:** ``` "Use consensus with flash supporting and pro opposing to evaluate migrating from MySQL to PostgreSQL" ``` **Feature Priority:** ``` "Get consensus from multiple models on whether to prioritize mobile app vs web dashboard development first" ``` **With Visual Context:** ``` "Use consensus to evaluate this new UI design mockup - have flash support it and pro be critical" ``` ## Best Practices - **Provide detailed context**: Include project constraints, requirements, and background - **Use balanced stances**: Mix supportive and critical perspectives for thorough analysis - **Specify focus areas**: Guide models to emphasize relevant aspects (security, performance, etc.) - **Include relevant files**: Provide code, documentation, or specifications for context - **Build on discussions**: Use continuation for follow-up analysis and refinement - **Leverage visual context**: Include diagrams, mockups, or design documents when relevant ## Ethical Guardrails The consensus tool includes built-in ethical safeguards: - Models won't support genuinely harmful proposals regardless of assigned stance - Unknown or invalid stances automatically default to neutral - Warning messages for potentially problematic requests - Focus on constructive technical decision-making ## When to Use Consensus vs Other Tools - **Use `consensus`** for: Multi-perspective analysis, structured debates, major technical decisions - **Use `chat`** for: Open-ended discussions and brainstorming - **Use `thinkdeep`** for: Extending specific analysis with deeper reasoning - **Use `analyze`** for: Understanding existing systems without debate