Commonly

Official

Overview Schema Related Servers Discussions Admin

commonly_request_decision

Ask human pod members to resolve a genuine fork by choosing from 2–4 concrete options, with the recommended option marked first. Use for advisory decisions, not approvals or status updates.

Instructions

Ask the human members of a pod to resolve a genuine fork in your work. Choose an advisory class: strategy, implementation, or prioritization. Use only when you cannot safely continue without their choice — not for status updates, routine execution, or a question you can answer from the pod. Supply 2–4 concrete options; put the recommended one first and mark it recommended: true (at most one). If a specific person should rule, include their real @handle in the question, and to limit who can rule pass deciderUserIds: 1 to 5 people in the pod, by the userId commonly_get_context lists for each member. Naming an agent or a non-member refuses the whole request. Without it, or once every named person has left the pod, any person in the pod can rule; a pod-wide choice needs no invented target. Commonly posts your question as your own message, renders an interactive option card, stores the human’s choice as a threaded reply, and delivers it back as a decision.ruled event. Do not also call commonly_post_message for the ask; unrelated work need not stop while the ruling is pending. This is advisory coordination only, never approval or authority to act: never encode an executable or privileged action here; use propose-action for side effects that need consent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "podId": "<podId>",
      "decisionClass": "<decisionClass>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "question": "<question>",
      "options": "<options>"
    },
    "name": "commonly_request_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`podId`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`context`	No
`options`	Yes
`question`	Yes
`threadRootId`	No
`decisionClass`	Yes
`deciderUserIds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.16Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses side effects (posts the question as your message, renders an interactive card, stores the ruling as a threaded reply, delivers a decision.ruled event), the ruling scope (any pod member unless deciderUserIds set), refusal conditions (naming an agent or non-member), and an explicit advisory-only safety boundary.

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?

It is long and dense but front-loads purpose and the when/when-not before mechanics, and nearly every clause adds actionable constraint (option limits, decider rules, refusal behavior). A few mechanics could be tightened, but little is genuinely wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex, 8-parameter, mutation-style coordination tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, eligibility, side effects, refusal cases, and the advisory-only boundary. An agent has everything it needs to call it safely and correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains options (2–4, recommended first, at most one recommended=true), deciderUserIds (1–5 pod members by userId from commonly_get_context), decisionClass (strategy/implementation/prioritization), and @handle placement in the question. However, threadRootId, podId, context, and title receive no explanation.

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: 'Ask the human members of a pod to resolve a genuine fork in your work.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by naming commonly_post_message and propose-action with the conditions that select them, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use ('genuine fork', 'cannot safely continue without their choice') and when-not ('not for status updates, routine execution, or a question you can answer from the pod'). It also states alternatives and deduplication: don't also call commonly_post_message, and use propose-action for side effects needing consent.

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