Skip to main content
Glama
BrightbeamAI

@brightbeamai/chap-coordinator-mcp

Official
by BrightbeamAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

chap.whisper.ask

chap.whisper.ask

Ask participants a question with a deadline and fallback answer, preventing tasks from stalling on unanswered replies.

Instructions

Put one question to one or more participants, with a deadline and a default. If the deadline passes unanswered the default applies, so a task is never blocked waiting on a reply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesWho is being asked.
fromYesParticipant URI, e.g. 'human:alice@example.org' or 'agent:bot@local'.
optionsNoMultiple-choice options. When present, an answer must name one of these ids in answer_option; any other id is refused with -32022.
task_idYesTask identifier returned by chap.task.create.
urgencyNoHow urgent the question is. Recorded and passed on to the client; it does not change the deadline or the lapse behaviour.low
questionYesThe question being put. A whisper is answered on its own, without the recipient opening the task.
workspaceYesWorkspace identifier, e.g. 'wsp_techcorp_support'.
deadline_msYesHow long the whisper stays open, in milliseconds from now. Once it passes, the whisper lapses and default_if_lapsed is applied.
default_if_lapsedYesThe value applied if the deadline passes with no answer. Required, so that a lapsed whisper still has a defined outcome.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.13

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a key behavior: if the deadline passes unanswered, the default applies, preventing blockage. But it does not explain what happens when only some of multiple recipients answer, whether a whisper record is created, or how the response is returned, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds useful information. The non-blocking rationale is included with no waste or repetition.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It covers the core ask-with-deadline behavior, but omits multi-participant answer semantics, what the response/return value is, and any side effects. An agent could invoke it correctly from the schema but may be uncertain about follow-up behavior.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the general semantics of deadline/default ('a task is never blocked'), but it does not add meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: putting one question to one or more participants, with a deadline and a default. This clearly separates 'ask' from sibling tools like 'chap.whisper.answer' and 'chap.deliberate.open', and the resource being acted on is unambiguous.

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 description gives a clear context for use: when a question needs a deadline and a fallback default so work is not blocked. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against sibling collaboration tools.

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