Skip to main content
Glama

decision_framework

Analyze complex decisions using structured frameworks like multi-criteria evaluation and expected utility to recommend the optimal choice.

Instructions

Structured decision analysis and rational choice frameworks for complex decisions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stageYesThe current stage of the decision-making process.
optionsYesA list of the options being considered.
criteriaNoA list of the criteria used to evaluate the options.
iterationYesThe iteration number of this decision-making process.
decisionIdYesA unique identifier for this decision.
constraintsNoA list of constraints on the decision.
timeHorizonNoThe time horizon for the decision.
analysisTypeYesThe type of analysis to be performed.
stakeholdersNoA list of stakeholders involved in the decision.
riskToleranceNoThe risk tolerance for the decision.
expectedValuesNoA record of the expected values for each option.
recommendationNoThe final recommendation.
informationGapsNoA list of information gaps that need to be filled.
nextStageNeededYesA flag indicating whether another stage is needed.
possibleOutcomesNoA list of possible outcomes for the decision.
decisionStatementYesA clear and concise statement of the decision to be made.
suggestedNextStageNoThe suggested next stage in the decision-making process.
criteriaEvaluationsNoA list of evaluations of the options against the criteria.
multiCriteriaScoresNoA record of the multi-criteria scores for each option.
sensitivityInsightsNoA list of insights from sensitivity analysis.
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, state modifications, idempotency, or permission requirements. For a tool with 20 parameters and a multi-stage process, this is a critical omission.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but insufficiently informative. It lacks structure, front-loading, and does not highlight key aspects like stages or required inputs. Under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, 7 required, nested objects, no output schema), the one-sentence description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the workflow, iteration, stage transitions, or how to fill the required fields, leaving the agent without essential context.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 'Structured decision analysis and rational choice frameworks for complex decisions' conveys the domain but is vague about specific actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'structured_argumentation' by focusing on decision analysis, but lacks a clear verb-resource pairing such as 'evaluate options' or 'guide stages'.

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. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or how it complements sibling tools like 'critical_thinking' or 'sequential_thinking'. The description offers no context for selection.

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