Skip to main content
Glama
BrightbeamAI

@brightbeamai/chap-coordinator-mcp

Official
by BrightbeamAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

chap.deliberate.open

chap.deliberate.open

Start a structured group decision by setting participants, question, and voting rule—any_one_approves, all_approve, quorum:N, weighted_vote, or weighted_vote_with_veto—to decide the outcome.

Instructions

Open a deliberation among several participants under a stated voting rule: any_one_approves, all_approve, quorum:N, weighted_vote:T or weighted_vote_with_veto:T.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesThe participants entitled to vote. A vote from anyone else is refused with -32030.
fromYesParticipant URI, e.g. 'human:alice@example.org' or 'agent:bot@local'.
ruleYesHow the outcome is decided when the deliberation closes: any_one_approves, all_approve, quorum:N, weighted_vote:T or weighted_vote_with_veto:T. An unrecognised rule is refused at open with -32033.
vetoNoVoter to can-veto map. A veto is honoured only under weighted_vote_with_veto, and only from a voter listed true here.
task_idNoTask identifier returned by chap.task.create.
weightsNoVoter to weight map, read by the weighted rules. A voter with no entry counts as 1. Weights must be integers: a JSON number with a fractional part is refused with -32602.
deadlineNoWhen voting is intended to close, as an ISO 8601 timestamp. Recorded on the deliberation; closing is done by chap.deliberate.close and the coordinator does not close on the deadline.
questionNoWhat the group is deciding. State it so that a yea or a nay is unambiguous.
workspaceYesWorkspace identifier, e.g. 'wsp_techcorp_support'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.13

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that a deliberation is opened and enumerates rule values, but it does not mention side effects, return values, permissions, or what happens after opening. The schema descriptions add error and deadline details, but the description field itself does not provide this context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately names the action and compacts the accepted voting rules into a short, useful list, making it easy to scan and parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool, the schema descriptions are rich and cover all parameters, including error codes and deadline behavior. However, the definition lacks an output schema or any description of the return value, and it does not explain how this tool connects to later steps like chap.deliberate.vote or chap.deliberate.close. These are meaningful gaps for an action that initiates a workflow.

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 the baseline is 3 even without parameter information in the description. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents each parameter with examples, error codes, and special semantics. No additional parameter insight is provided by the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action, 'Open a deliberation among several participants', and lists the accepted voting rules, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling continuation tools like chap.deliberate.vote, chap.deliberate.close, and chap.deliberate.comment because it names the initiation step rather than a later action.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chap.deliberate.vote or chap.deliberate.close. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are given, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter schema.

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

Install Server

Other Tools