Skip to main content
Glama

council

Facilitate structured three-stage deliberation among agents: independent voting, anonymized cross-ranking, and final synthesis to achieve balanced consensus with cancellation support.

Instructions

3-stage council: independent → cross-rank (anonymized) → synthesis.

Use cases:

  • Atomic deliberation when you don't want to manage poll/cancel state

  • 3-perspective review with explicit ranking step (reduces first-mover bias)

  • Quick consensus that's stronger than consult_parallel but lighter than debate

council_id registers a cancellation watermark with CancellationRegistry. To cancel an in-flight council, the caller must supply the id upfront and then bump the counter via CancellationRegistry.request_cancel(id) from another in-process caller. The MCP-exposed debate_cancel tool does NOT cover council ids — it looks up DebateStore which has no council entries. Cancellation is honoured between stages only; running subprocesses are never killed mid-stage.

ctx is the FastMCP-injected context. When the client supports progress notifications it sees three events (one per stage); otherwise emit is a silent no-op.

Returns a dict with status ∈ {success, cancelled, failed} plus partial: True when results are degraded (some stage1 vote failed, or stage3 chairman failed). failed is reserved for "all stage1 voters failed" — the council had nothing to deliberate on.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentsYes
questionYes
chairmanNo
personaNodefault
timeout_secondsNo
council_idNo
ctxNo
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the three stages, cancellation mechanism (between stages only), progress notifications, return status values (success, cancelled, failed, partial), and limitations regarding mid-stage cancellation.

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 detailed and front-loaded with the core process and use cases. It uses bullet points effectively. Some redundancy exists, but overall each sentence serves a purpose. Slightly longer than necessary but well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3-stage, cancellation, progress) and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: stages, cancellation, progress, and return values. Minor gap in explaining the chairman role, but overall complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant value for council_id (cancellation watermark with CancellationRegistry) and ctx (FastMCP progress events). Other parameters (agents, question, etc.) are not elaborated beyond schema titles, but the context is inferable.

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 explicitly states the 3-stage council process (independent → cross-rank → synthesis) and distinguishes from sibling tools like consult_parallel and debate, making the tool's specific verb and resource clear.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (atomic deliberation, 3-perspective review, quick consensus) and compares with alternatives (consult_parallel, debate). Also notes that debate_cancel does not cover council ids, guiding appropriate usage.

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/oblogin/consult-mcp'

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