Skip to main content
Glama
BrightbeamAI

@brightbeamai/chap-coordinator-mcp

Official
by BrightbeamAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

chap.deliberate.vote

chap.deliberate.vote

Cast a yea, nay, or abstain in an open deliberation to record a participant's single vote and rationale, ensuring auditable approvals and clear outcomes for AI agent work.

Instructions

Cast a yea, nay or abstain in an open deliberation. Each participant votes once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesParticipant URI, e.g. 'human:alice@example.org' or 'agent:bot@local'.
voteYesThis voter's position. An abstention is recorded but counts as neither a yea nor a nay, so under all_approve or quorum:N it withholds the approval those rules need.
weightNoRecorded with the vote. The tally uses the weights map given at chap.deliberate.open, not this value.
commentNoWhy the vote went this way. Recorded with it.
workspaceYesWorkspace identifier, e.g. 'wsp_techcorp_support'.
veto_invokedNoBlocks the outcome regardless of the tally. Honoured only under weighted_vote_with_veto, and only when the voter is listed true in the veto map given at open.
deliberation_idYesIdentifier returned by chap.deliberate.open. A closed deliberation is refused with -32032, and a second vote from the same voter with -32031.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.13

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action and hints at single-vote semantics, but it does not explicitly describe side effects such as veto behavior, vote tallying, or failure modes beyond what appears in the parameter descriptions.

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 two short, purposeful sentences with no redundant wording or filler. It delivers the core purpose and a key constraint directly and efficiently.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters, including important edge-case behavior such as closed-deliberation refusal and duplicate-vote refusal. The description is concise but, together with the rich schema, provides enough context for this simple voting action.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a meaningful description, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to because the schema is already detailed.

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 clearly states the action ('Cast a yea, nay or abstain') and the target resource ('an open deliberation'), and it adds the distinguishing rule that each participant votes once. This is sufficient to separate it from sibling tools like chap.deliberate.comment or chap.abstain.declare.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'in an open deliberation' and 'Each participant votes once' imply usage constraints: the deliberation must be open and the voter must not have voted before. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or describe conditions like closed deliberations or duplicate-vote errors.

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