Sets up a multi-round collaboration workflow across AI providers to verify or refine content. Specify mode, content, models, and rounds to run structured cross-provider checks.
Prepare a multi-round provider collaboration workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| models | No | Models | |
| rounds | No | Rounds | |
| content | Yes | Content | |
| collaboration_mode | Yes | Collaboration mode |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavior. 'Prepare' hints at a setup action, but the description says nothing about side effects, whether providers are contacted, whether a workflow object is returned, or how rounds/models affect execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is only one sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but it is under-sized for a required-mode, 4-parameter workflow tool. A single abstract phrase conveys too little structure and leaves no detail hierarchy for an agent to use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, a required collaboration mode with no enum values, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent has no way to know the outcome of calling the tool, what 'prepare' produces, or how models, rounds, and collaboration_mode interact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline applies even though the tool description itself adds little meaning. There is no explanation of what collaboration_mode values are valid or what an empty models string means, but this is a moderate gap rather than a complete failure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description offers a verb and resource ('Prepare... collaboration workflow'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'prepare' is abstract—it does not state whether this starts the collaboration, returns a plan, or configures providers—and it does not differentiate the tool from sibling planning/collaboration tools like coeus_multi_model_verify, coeus_critical_debate, or coeus_workflow_automation_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is zero guidance about when this tool should be chosen over the many alternative collaboration, verification, and planning tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.