Skip to main content
Glama

collaborative_reasoning

Solve complex problems by simulating diverse expert perspectives and structured contributions to reach consensus.

Instructions

Multi-perspective collaborative problem solving with diverse personas and structured contributions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stageYesThe current stage of the collaborative reasoning process, guiding the nature of contributions.
topicYesThe central topic or problem being addressed in the collaborative session.
personasYesThe set of diverse personas participating in the reasoning process.
iterationYesThe turn number or iteration of the session, for tracking progress.
sessionIdYesA unique identifier for this collaborative reasoning session.
keyInsightsNoA list of significant insights that have emerged from the discussion.
contributionsYesA log of all contributions made during the session.
disagreementsNoA list of active or resolved disagreements that have occurred.
nextPersonaIdNoThe ID of the persona designated to contribute next, guiding the conversation flow.
openQuestionsNoA list of unresolved questions that require further discussion or information.
activePersonaIdYesThe ID of the persona who is currently expected to contribute.
consensusPointsNoA list of key points or decisions on which all personas have reached agreement.
finalRecommendationNoThe final, synthesized recommendation or decision resulting from the session.
nextContributionNeededYesA flag indicating whether the session is awaiting another contribution to proceed.
suggestedContributionTypesNoA list of suggested types for the next contribution to guide the active persona.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description is solely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is iterative, stateful (using sessionId, iteration), or how it processes contributions. The description only gives a high-level characterization.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous content. It is concise and front-loaded with key terms, but could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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 (15 parameters, nested structures, no output schema), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain the collaborative process, the role of stages, or the expected return value, leaving significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, thus meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool is for 'multi-perspective collaborative problem solving with diverse personas and structured contributions', which indicates its purpose but is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'structured_argumentation' or 'critical_thinking'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description lacks any usage context.

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/emmahyde/thinking-patterns'

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