Humanitarian Negotiation MCP Server
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server providing specialized tools for analyzing and conducting humanitarian negotiations in high-stakes, complex environments.
Overview
This MCP server implements three proven methodologies used by humanitarian negotiators, mediators, and aid workers:
Island of Agreement (IoA) - Establishes common ground by categorizing negotiation elements into contested/agreed facts and convergent/divergent norms
Iceberg & Common Shared Space (CSS) - Reveals the hidden structure of positions by examining what parties say (positions), how they think (reasoning), and why they act (motives/values)
Stakeholder Analysis - Systematically maps, prioritizes, and develops engagement strategies for all relevant actors based on their power, urgency, legitimacy, and position
Features
Structured Analysis: Transform complex negotiation contexts into actionable frameworks
Evidence-Based Recommendations: Receive prioritized strategies based on proven methodologies
Flexible Output Formats: Get results in Markdown (human-readable) or JSON (machine-readable)
Relationship Mapping: Visualize influence pathways and identify key intermediaries
Coalition Building: Discover opportunities to build alliances and neutralize opposition
Risk Mitigation: Identify potential pitfalls and receive specific mitigation strategies
Tools Available
Core Analysis Tools
humanitarian_create_island_of_agreement
Creates IoA table with contested/agreed facts and convergent/divergent norms
Provides strategic recommendations on what to prioritize and avoid
Best used at the start of negotiation planning
humanitarian_analyze_icebergs
Compares both parties' positions, reasoning, and motives
Identifies Common Shared Space for compromise
Suggests specific opportunities for mutual gain
humanitarian_analyze_stakeholders
Characterizes stakeholders by Power, Urgency, Legitimacy, and Position
Prioritizes stakeholders into First/Second/Third priority levels
Maps relationships and influence pathways
Develops engagement strategies for each priority level
humanitarian_leverage_stakeholder_influence
Develops specific tactics to influence a target stakeholder
Identifies direct and indirect influence pathways
Recommends coalition opportunities and risk mitigation
Utility Tools
humanitarian_negotiation_guide
Comprehensive guide to all methodologies
Best practices and workflow recommendations
Tool selection guidance
Installation
Prerequisites
Python 3.10 or higher
pip package manager
Install Dependencies
The requirements.txt
should contain:
Add to Claude Desktop
Edit your Claude Desktop config file:
macOS:
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows:
%APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Add the server configuration:
Restart Claude Desktop
Usage Examples
Example 1: Starting a New Negotiation
Result: You'll receive an IoA table showing which facts are agreed upon (e.g., 50,000 people need assistance) vs. contested (e.g., exact locations, security assessment), and which norms are shared (humanitarian imperative) vs. divergent (sovereignty concerns).
Example 2: Understanding Deeper Motivations
Result: Iceberg analysis revealing that both parties share concern about reputational risk, suggesting a compromise around transparent reporting mechanisms and joint monitoring.
Example 3: Stakeholder Mapping
Result: Priority rankings showing which stakeholders need active engagement (First Priority: Military Commander, UN Envoy, ICRC) and specific engagement strategies for each.
Example 4: Influencing a Key Stakeholder
Result: Specific tactics showing which supportive stakeholders can advocate to the Commander, how to neutralize opposed influencers, and coalition-building opportunities.
Methodology Overview
Island of Agreement
Purpose: Establish negotiation foundation by separating facts from norms, and agreed elements from contested ones.
When to Use:
Beginning of negotiation
When parties are polarized
Need to find common ground
Key Output: 4-column table (Contested Facts | Agreed Facts | Convergent Norms | Divergent Norms)
Iceberg & Common Shared Space
Purpose: Understand the three-level structure of negotiation:
What (Visible positions)
How (Tactical reasoning)
Why (Core motives and values)
When to Use:
After IoA analysis
Positions seem incompatible
Need creative solutions
Key Output: Side-by-side iceberg comparison with Common Shared Space and compromise opportunities
Stakeholder Analysis
Purpose: Systematically identify, assess, prioritize, and engage stakeholders.
Assessment Criteria:
Power: Ability to influence decisions (0.0-1.0)
Urgency: Time-sensitivity of issue (0.0-1.0)
Legitimacy: Relevance to contribute meaningfully (0.0-1.0)
Position: Stance on issue (-1.0 to +1.0: Opposed to Supportive)
Priority Levels:
First Priority: High Power AND Urgency AND Legitimacy → Active engagement
Second Priority: Any two high attributes → Selective engagement
Third Priority: One or fewer high attributes → Minimal engagement
Key Output: Characterization table, priority rankings, relationship mapping, engagement strategies
Best Practices
1. Sequential Approach
Use tools in sequence for comprehensive analysis:
Island of Agreement (foundation)
Iceberg/CSS (deeper understanding)
Stakeholder Analysis (engagement planning)
Influence Leverage (tactical execution)
2. Regular Updates
Negotiations are dynamic - update analyses as situations evolve
Re-run stakeholder analysis if positions change significantly
Adjust strategies based on outcomes
3. Evidence-Based Decisions
Support contested facts with credible data
Use joint fact-finding to resolve disagreements
Document all agreements and understandings
4. Communication Style
Maintain formal, professional tone
Focus on shared interests and mutual benefits
Avoid inflammatory or judgmental language
Frame in terms of risk mitigation for all parties
5. Relationship Building
Start with agreed facts and convergent norms
Build trust incrementally through small wins
Demonstrate understanding of all perspectives
Seek solutions that allow all parties to "save face"
Limitations
Analysis Quality: Output quality depends on input quality. Provide comprehensive, accurate context.
Dynamic Situations: Analyses represent snapshots in time. Update regularly as situations evolve.
Cultural Context: Tools provide general frameworks. Adapt recommendations to specific cultural contexts.
Human Judgment: Tools support decision-making but don't replace experienced negotiator judgment.
Use Cases
Humanitarian Access Negotiations
Negotiating with governments or armed groups for access to affected populations
Establishing humanitarian corridors or ceasefires
Coordinating multi-agency responses
Inter-Organizational Coordination
Resolving conflicts between UN agencies
Coordinating with military forces on civil-military cooperation
Aligning donor priorities with operational needs
Community Engagement
Negotiating with local authorities and leaders
Managing community expectations and participation
Resolving disputes over aid distribution
Crisis Response Planning
Multi-stakeholder coordination for emergency response
Negotiating resource allocation among agencies
Establishing coordination mechanisms under pressure
Support and Feedback
This MCP server implements established humanitarian negotiation frameworks used in:
UN humanitarian operations
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) negotiations
NGO coordination in complex emergencies
For questions about specific use cases or to report issues, provide detailed context including:
Negotiation type and stage
Parties involved
Specific challenges faced
Tool outputs received
License
[Your chosen license]
Acknowledgments
Methodologies based on established humanitarian negotiation practices and frameworks used by international humanitarian organizations.
This server cannot be installed
remote-capable server
The server can be hosted and run remotely because it primarily relies on remote services or has no dependency on the local environment.
Enables humanitarian negotiators to analyze complex situations using proven methodologies like Island of Agreement, Iceberg analysis, and stakeholder mapping. Provides structured frameworks for establishing common ground, understanding deeper motivations, and developing strategic engagement plans in high-stakes humanitarian contexts.