Skip to main content
Glama
CronusL-1141

AI Team OS

by CronusL-1141
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

meeting_create

Create a team meeting and receive a ready-to-use dispatch_plan for spawning participant Agents. Supports legacy string or structured participant definitions.

Instructions

Create a team meeting and return a ready-to-use dispatch_plan for spawning participant Agents.

Supports two participant formats:

  1. Legacy (strings): participants=["arch-lead", "backend-arch"] Returns dispatch_plan with empty launch_call + deprecation warning.

  2. Structured (dicts): participants=[{"name": "arch-lead", "agent_template": "software-architect", "role": "负责评估架构方案", "context_files": ["docs/arch.md"], "expected_output": "三段式"}] Returns dispatch_plan with fully populated launch_call.params ready to paste into Agent tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesMeeting discussion topic
roundsNoCustom round structure e.g. [{"topic": "立场", "rule": "每人3段"}]
team_idNoTeam ID or name (optional, auto-uses active team if empty)
templateNoTemplate name: brainstorm / decision / review / retrospective / standup / debate / lean_coffee / council (meeting_template_list shows each one's rounds). The default "free" picks a template from the topic when one fits and otherwise runs an unstructured meeting.free
materialsNoGlobal materials all participants must read (file paths)
team_nameNo会议归属的团队名（仅用于 OS 侧归属解析）；不会写进 launch_call —— CC Agent 的 team_name 参数已废弃且被忽略
participantsNoParticipant list — strings (legacy) or structured dicts (recommended)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / template / description
      Previous value: -"Meeting template, default \"free\""New value: +"Template name: brainstorm / decision / review / retrospective /\nstandup / debate / lean_coffee / council (meeting_template_list shows\neach one's rounds). The default \"free\" picks a template from the topic\nwhen one fits and otherwise runs an unstructured meeting."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.11.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / team_name / description
      Previous value: -"Team name for Agent spawn (used in launch_call.params.team_name)"New value: +"会议归属的团队名（仅用于 OS 侧归属解析）；不会写进 launch_call\n—— CC Agent 的 team_name 参数已废弃且被忽略"
  3. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 usefully discloses that legacy string participants return an empty launch_call plus a deprecation warning, while structured dicts return a fully populated launch_call.params. However, it does not state permissions, side effects, or persistence behavior for the meeting creation itself.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then uses a numbered list to compare the two participant formats. The examples are necessary for illustrating the structured format, but the section is slightly verbose and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Given seven parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description need not document every parameter or return field. It adequately covers the tool's main purpose and the key participant format distinction, though it omits any usage routing relative to sibling tools and any behavioral notes around permissions or mutability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema for the participants parameter. It gives concrete examples of legacy strings and structured dict keys (agent_template, role, context_files, expected_output) and explains the differing return behavior for each format.

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 verb and resource ('Create a team meeting') and adds the distinctive return artifact ('dispatch_plan for spawning participant Agents'). This separates it cleanly from sibling meeting tools like meeting_list, meeting_update, and meeting_send_message.

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?

Usage is implied by the creation verb and the mention of spawning participant Agents, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like debate_start or meeting_update. The format choice for participants (legacy vs structured) is described, which adds some contextual guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools