Skip to main content
Glama

mediate_agent_conflict

Mediate conflicts between two agents by evaluating their positions, proposed actions, and constraints to produce a consensus action plan.

Instructions

Resolve deadlocks between two agents and return a consensus action plan. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyNoOptional mediation policy constraints
agent_aYesFirst agent perspective
agent_bYesSecond agent perspective
session_idYesYour active session ID
constraintsYesExecution constraints that must be respected
ritual_stripNoOptional machine hygiene flag. When true, returns structured output without ritual/narrative prose, model-safe preambles, or guardrail alias blocks.
response_modeNoOptional response-mode control. Use model_safe when the caller must avoid claiming consciousness, sentience, personhood, or literal emotions.
conflict_summaryYesOne paragraph describing the deadlock
response_profileNoOptional output-shape control. Use machine for structured JSON only; machine automatically strips ritual/narrative text.
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false). The description only states it resolves deadlocks and returns a plan, but does not disclose side effects, state mutations, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic outcome.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is almost too brief, sacrificing potentially useful context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, use cases, or how the consensus plan is formatted.

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 input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Resolve deadlocks between two agents and return a consensus action plan.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_handoff or crisis_intervention.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling 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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/davidmosiah/delx-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server