Skip to main content
Glama
albinjal

multi-agent-debate-mcp

by albinjal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
multiagentdebateA

Structured multi‑persona debate tool.

Call sequence (typical):

  1. Each persona registers once with action:"register".

  2. Personas alternate action:"argue" (fresh point) or "rebut" (counter a targetAgentId).

  3. A special persona (or either side) issues action:"judge" with a verdict text (first line should be "pro", "con", or "inconclusive").

  4. Set needsMoreRounds:false only when the debate is finished and a verdict stands.

Parameters:

  • agentId (string) : "pro", "con", "judge", or any custom ID

  • round (int ≥1) : Debate round number

  • action (string) : "register" | "argue" | "rebut" | "judge"

  • content (string, optional) : Argument text or verdict

  • targetAgentId (string opt.) : Agent being rebutted (only for action:"rebut")

  • needsMoreRounds (boolean) : True if additional debate rounds desired

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusion with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly singular.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained. The name 'multiagentdebate' is descriptive and unambiguous.

Tool Count3/5

One tool for a multi-step debate process feels thin. While the tool is comprehensive in its actions, it would benefit from splitting into separate tools for registration, arguing, and judging to improve modularity.

Completeness2/5

The tool covers the core debate actions but lacks tools for listing debates, retrieving histories, or managing multiple concurrent debates. This creates significant gaps for an agent trying to orchestrate complex workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources