model-council-mcp
The model-council-mcp server routes questions to a council of diverse AI models and synthesizes their answers using configurable analytical modes.
Core tools:
ask_council— Send a question to all council members and receive a structured response.configure_council— Set member models, judge model, response mode, and deconfliction rounds at runtime (all fields optional, changes persist for the session). You can also override mode/rounds per individualask_councilcall.list_models— Discover all available models across configured providers, with optional provider filtering.get_council_config— Inspect the current council settings.
Supported model providers:
Local: Ollama (auto-discovered), vLLM, TRT-LLM, SGLang
Cloud: OpenAI, Anthropic, Groq
Subscription-backed (no API key): Claude Pro/Max or ChatGPT via local CLI
Response synthesis modes:
individual— Raw per-model answers side by side.categorized— A judge AI groups responses into common agreement, complementary insights, and conflicting positions.deconflicted— Iterative re-questioning to resolve conflicts, returning a deconfliction score (0–100%).pooled(Delphi-style) — Judge distills answers into a neutral, anonymous pool for members to reconsider.dialectic(thesis → antithesis → synthesis) — Adversarial debate with a pros/cons dossier and ranked top-3.
Key design goal: Surface systematic biases and blind spots by querying independent models from different families and providers, then resolving disagreements through structured synthesis.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@model-council-mcpAnalyze the ethical implications of AI from different philosophical perspectives"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
model-council-mcp
An MCP server that routes a question to a council of AI models — local (Ollama, vLLM, TRT-LLM, SGLang) and cloud (OpenAI, Anthropic, X.AI Grok) — and synthesizes their answers in five configurable modes:
Mode | What you get |
| Each model's raw answer, side by side |
| Judge groups responses into common agreement, complementary insights, and conflicting positions |
| Iterative loop — judge re-questions the council on each conflict until resolved or rounds exhausted; returns a deconfliction score (0–100 %) |
| Delphi-style — judge distils all answers into a neutral, deduplicated pool (no counts, no attribution, no ranking); members reconsider against it and answer freshly. No winner is forced, so genuine divergence is preserved rather than collapsed by social proof |
| Thesis → antithesis → synthesis — members defend their initial pick and argue why the alternatives aren't better; the judge compiles a balanced pros/cons dossier per option; members then re-select a ranked top-3 having weighed both sides |
Example use cases
High-stakes technical decision —
ask_council(..., mode="dialectic")to see each option argued for and against before a synthesized, ranked recommendation (attach the relevant file withfiles=[…]).Reduce single-model bias —
mode="pooled"(Delphi) so a minority-but-correct answer is preserved instead of averaged away by the loudest model.Spot disagreement fast —
mode="categorized"to have a judge sort answers into agreement, complementary insight, and genuine conflict.Code / design review across models — attach a file (
files=["src/auth.ts"]) or a local diff (git_ref="uncommitted") and ask the whole council to critique it; usecontextto add constraints ("must be OWASP-clean").Local-only, offline second opinions — fan a prompt across every model you already run in Ollama; no cloud, no API keys.
Mix your subscriptions — put Claude (Opus/Sonnet/Haiku) and ChatGPT (via Codex) side by side on the same question, billed to plans you already pay for.
Long runs without blocking — kick off a deconfliction over slow local models with
ask_council_async, keep working, thenget_council_result(job_id).
Related MCP server: Delia
Install as a Claude Code plugin (recommended)
This repo is a self-contained Claude Code plugin — the server is bundled into a single zero-dependency file (bundle/server.cjs), so it runs offline against local models with no npm install step.
# 1. Add this repo as a marketplace (from GitHub)
/plugin marketplace add tsarihan/model-council-mcp
# 2. Install the plugin
/plugin install model-council@model-councilZero-config — it just works. On first run the plugin detects your environment and auto-populates the council with everything usable: every local Ollama chat model, your top curated Ollama :cloud models, and — if you're logged into them — Claude (via the local claude CLI) and ChatGPT (via the local codex CLI). It tells you what it found, warns that cloud/subscription members use your own quotas, and lets you delete any you don't want. Deletions and setup persist across reloads. Ask a question immediately — no setup required.
On a new session the plugin prints a one-line status (council size, Ollama up/down, which CLIs are installed).
Run
/model-council:statusany time for the full readout — detected models, CLI login state, per-provider concurrency, and quota usage.Run
/model-council:setupto pick your subscription tiers with an interactive menu.
Everything is optional and adjustable from /plugin → Configure. API keys are stored in your system keychain.
Local development / test install:
# Validate the manifest
claude plugin validate .
# Load without installing (dev loop)
claude --plugin-dir /path/to/model-council-mcpConfigurable options (prompted at install)
These are all set from /plugin → Configure in Claude Code (or the equivalent env vars shown for standalone installs — e.g. REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS for the timeout, CLOUD_CONCURRENCY for the cloud override). They persist across reloads.
Option | Purpose | Default |
Ollama address | Base URL of your Ollama server |
|
Council models | Pin specific models, or leave blank to auto-use all Ollama models | (empty → auto) |
Auto-discover council | Use all Ollama chat models (local + |
|
Claude tier |
|
|
ChatGPT tier |
|
|
Ollama tier |
|
|
Grok tier |
|
|
Judge model | Categorizer/deconflicter, or |
|
Default response mode |
|
|
Max deconfliction rounds | 1–10 |
|
OpenAI / Anthropic / X.AI API key | Enable cloud models (stored in keychain) | — |
vLLM / TRT-LLM / SGLang servers |
| — |
Max response tokens | Tokens per completion |
|
Default reasoning effort | How hard every member and the judge think: |
|
Per-request timeout (text) | Wall-clock timeout (ms) for a single completion on text-only calls before the member is recorded as timed-out. Default raised to 5 min because local Ollama models run sequentially. Honoured verbatim by every provider, including the subscription CLIs (no 300s floor). Set via |
|
Per-request timeout (repo) | Timeout used instead of the text timeout when |
|
Cloud concurrency (override) | Optional; caps all cloud pools, overriding the per-tier limits | (unset → tiers) |
Local concurrency | Simultaneous local requests (0 = unlimited) |
|
Completion retries | Retries on an empty/failed response |
|
Subscription tiers, auto-population & detection
The council mixes four kinds of member, each gated by a subscription tier so it never quietly burns quota you don't have:
Provider | Tiers |
| Reference file |
Ollama |
| local models only (no | |
Claude (via |
| no Claude members | ″ |
ChatGPT (via |
| no ChatGPT/Codex members | ″ |
Grok (via |
| no Grok members | ″ |
Grok defaults to free even when the grok CLI is installed and logged in — unlike Claude/ChatGPT, it's opt-in, since it's a newer provider added on top of an existing install base. Set GROK_TIER (or run /model-council:setup) to turn it on.
Per-provider concurrency. Each subscription gets its own concurrency ceiling — Claude 4/8/12 on Pro/Max-5×/Max-20×, ChatGPT 6/8/12 on Plus/Pro-5×/Pro-20×, Ollama-cloud 3 on Pro / 10 on Max — so one slow, tightly-rate-limited provider can't starve another. Only Ollama's numbers are published hard caps (queue-then-reject, not raisable client-side); Claude and ChatGPT publish usage multipliers (5×/20×) over a shared throttled pool and no per-plan concurrency, so their ceilings are researched starting points that scale with the tier — safe to edit upward until you see 429s or quota burn. Tier→limit mappings (with a
concurrencyBasisnote recording exactly this provenance), curated cloud models, and provider model names all live inconfig/subscriptions.json— edit it and pull to pick up new plans/models.Detection. On boot (and on
council_status) the server checks: is Ollama reachable, does your plan reach:cloud, is theclaudeCLI installed and logged in (a locked-down probe), is thecodexCLI signed in (codex login status), is thegrokCLI installed and logged in (a locked-down probe, like Claude — the CLI has no dedicated login-status subcommand). Only usable providers are auto-added; the rest get a hint (e.g. "Codex CLI installed but not signed in — runcodex login").It persists. Your tier choices, member edits, and any
configure_councilsetting you set (judge model, response mode, max deconfliction rounds) are saved to~/.config/model-council/state.json(override withMODEL_COUNCIL_STATE), so they survive plugin reloads — each field only persists once you've explicitly set it at least once; an untouched field falls back to its env-var/default as before. Known limitation: writes are atomic (a torn/partial file is never observed) but not cross-process locked — two MCP server processes pointed at the same state file and edited at close to the same instant can each read-modify-write past the other, and whichever write lands second wins for any field only it touched. Harmless for the common case (one server process per session); if you deliberately run multiple concurrent sessions against a shared state file, prefer giving each its ownMODEL_COUNCIL_STATE.Works standalone too. The auto-config,
council_status, andsetup_counciltools all work for a plainclaude mcp add/ MCP-store install; only the SessionStart welcome line and the/model-council:*slash commands are Claude-Code-plugin-only sugar.
Cloud and subscription members run under your own subscription quotas via the sanctioned first-party CLIs.
council_statusalways shows a quota warning listing which paid providers are in the council. Reusing a subscription token against a raw vendor API from a third-party app is a separate, prohibited thing — this plugin does not do that.
Install as a standalone MCP server (any MCP client)
The server is a single zero-dependency file (bundle/server.cjs) — no npm install, no npx. Clone the repo and point any MCP client at it:
git clone https://github.com/tsarihan/model-council-mcp.gitThen in your client's MCP config (Claude Code's ~/.claude.json → mcpServers, Cursor, Cline, etc.) — point command at the cloned bundle:
{
"mcpServers": {
"model-council": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/model-council-mcp/bundle/server.cjs"],
"env": {
"OLLAMA_ADDRESS": "http://localhost:11434",
"RESPONSE_MODE": "categorized"
}
}
}
}For Claude Code specifically, you can also add it directly:
claude mcp add model-council -s user -- node /absolute/path/to/model-council-mcp/bundle/server.cjsConfiguration (environment variables)
Provider connections
Variable | Description | Default |
| Ollama server URL |
|
| Enables OpenAI models | — |
| Enables Anthropic Claude models | — |
| Enables X.AI Grok models | — |
| vLLM servers (see below) | — |
| TRT-LLM servers | — |
| SGLang servers | — |
|
|
|
| Model aliases for the CLI member |
|
| Path to the |
|
| Comma-separated additional Ollama model names to run through the | — |
| Ollama address for the harness member, if different from |
|
|
|
|
| Model names for the Codex member ( |
|
| Path to the |
|
|
|
|
| Model names for the Grok CLI member |
|
| Path to the |
|
Claude via your subscription (first-party CLI)
Set CLAUDE_CLI=true to add council members that run through the locally-installed Claude Code CLI (claude -p) instead of the Anthropic API. Inference runs under whatever your claude CLI is logged in with — typically your own Claude Pro/Max subscription — so these members don't consume API credits. They appear as claude-cli:opus, claude-cli:sonnet, etc.
Behavior & requirements
The
claudeCLI must be installed and logged in (claude→/login, orclaude setup-token). SetCLAUDE_CLI_PATHif it isn't onPATH.Each call shells out to
claude -pwith all tools disabled (--tools ""), MCP disabled (--strict-mcp-config, so it can't recurse into this plugin), and sessions not persisted — a clean single text answer.ANTHROPIC_API_KEY/ANTHROPIC_AUTH_TOKENare stripped from the nested call, because the CLI silently prefers an API key over the subscription. So these members stay subscription-billed even if you also set an API key for the regularanthropic:provider.They are not auto-discovered — add them explicitly via
configure_councilorCOUNCIL_MODELS(e.g.claude-cli:opus), so they don't quietly draw down your subscription.
Where it works: anywhere the claude CLI actually executes — the Claude Code CLI, or the Claude Desktop app on a machine that also has the CLI. With /remote-control on your CLI, driving it from the Claude web/mobile code tab still runs claude -p on your machine, so it works there too. It does not work for a remotely-hosted copy of this server (no local CLI), and it can't borrow the Claude app's subscription directly (no client supports MCP sampling yet).
This uses the sanctioned first-party CLI under your own subscription, for your own use. High-volume automated fan-out can hit your subscription's rate limits — keep
CLOUD_CONCURRENCYmodest (these members use the cloud pool). Reusing a subscription token against the raw Anthropic API from a third-party app is a separate thing and is prohibited; this feature does not do that.
Open-weight models with genuine repo access (Ollama via the claude CLI's harness)
Every other Ollama/OpenAI-compatible/API-keyed provider gets a flattened text completion with no tool use at all — full_repo_access (see below) only ever meant something for claude-cli/codex-cli, because they're the only members with an agentic harness to grant tools within. CLAUDE_CLI_OLLAMA_MODELS closes that gap for any Ollama model (local or :cloud) by reusing the exact same harness: it points the claude CLI's own ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL at Ollama's native Anthropic-Messages-API-compatible endpoint (/v1/messages, confirmed live to return authentically Anthropic-shaped JSON) instead of the real Anthropic API, then drives it with the identical --tools Read,Grep,Glob --add-dir <repo> allowlist as the real subscription CLI — same permission enforcement, same --strict-mcp-config, same everything, just a different backend.
CLAUDE_CLI_OLLAMA_MODELS=glm-5.2:cloud,kimi-k2.7-code:cloud,deepseek-v4-pro:cloudThey appear as claude-cli/claude-cli-ollama:glm-5.2:cloud (note the serverId — this is a separate registration from the real subscription CLI, so it never shares its id, its label, or its concurrency pool).
Behavior & requirements
These members are NOT Claude. They're open-weight models answering through Claude Code's harness purely to get real tool use;
list_models/get_council_configlabel them"<model> (via claude CLI harness, <address>)", never"Claude ..."(and any basic-auth credentials in the address are redacted from that label).Ambient env isolation. Because harness mode repoints the CLI at a non-Anthropic (possibly remote) host, it strips every ambient backend-redirect/credential var from the subprocess — the
CLAUDE_CODE_USE_BEDROCK/VERTEX/FOUNDRYselectors (which otherwise outrankANTHROPIC_BASE_URLand would send your repo to that cloud),ANTHROPIC_CUSTOM_HEADERS, OAuth/Foundry tokens, and provider base-url overrides — so nothing inherited from the server's environment can redirect the prompt to, or ride along as a secret to, the harness host. (The real subscription CLI leaves those selectors alone, so a legitimately Bedrock/Vertex-hosted Claude Code still works.)Requires the
claudeCLI installed (same binary as the real subscription CLI — no separate install) and a running Ollama server whose version serves/v1/messagesnatively (confirmed on Ollama 0.32.4; older versions may lack it).Concurrency is bucketed under Ollama's own pools (
ollama-cloudfor:cloudmodels,localotherwise) — not the Claude subscription's pool — so this can't starve (or be starved by) real Claude subscription members.Auto-populated by default. When Ollama cloud is reachable and the
claudeCLI is installed, curated:cloudmodels fromsubscriptions.jsonare automatically routed through the harness (tool access).CLAUDE_CLI_OLLAMA_MODELSadds explicit models on top. Existing users with persistedollama:*:cloudmembers are migrated automatically on next boot.Full repo contents can be sent to whichever Ollama backend answers — a local Ollama model keeps this fully offline, but a
:cloudmodel sends repo contents to that cloud provider the same wayfull_repo_accesssends them to Claude/ChatGPT's cloud for the first-party CLIs. Don't enablefull_repo_accesson a repo containing secrets you wouldn't send to that provider.
Where it works: same as the real Claude CLI above — anywhere the claude binary actually executes.
ChatGPT via your subscription (first-party Codex CLI)
Set CODEX_CLI=true to add a council member that runs through the locally-installed Codex CLI (codex exec) instead of the OpenAI API. Inference runs under whatever your codex CLI is signed in with — typically your own ChatGPT subscription (codex login → Sign in with ChatGPT) — so this member doesn't consume API credits. It appears as codex-cli:default (or codex-cli:<model>).
Behavior & requirements
The
codexCLI must be installed and signed in (codex login). SetCODEX_CLI_PATHif it isn't onPATH.Each call shells out to
codex execin a read-only sandbox (--sandbox read-only) with no approval prompts (approval_policy=never), run in an empty ephemeral working dir so the agent has nothing to explore, and reads the final answer from-o <file>— a clean single text answer, no file changes.OPENAI_API_KEY/CODEX_API_KEYare stripped from the nested call, because the CLI silently prefers an API key over the ChatGPT login. So this member stays subscription-billed even if you also set an API key for the regularopenai:provider.Use
CODEX_CLI_MODELS=defaultto let Codex pick its configured model, or name specific ones (e.g.gpt-5-codex). It is not auto-discovered — addcodex-cli:defaultexplicitly viaconfigure_councilorCOUNCIL_MODELS.Codex is a coding agent, so answers carry a coding-agent flavor (concise, implementation-oriented) even on general questions — useful as a distinct voice in the council, but not a neutral generalist.
Where it works: same as the Claude CLI above — anywhere the codex binary actually executes (this machine, or a /remote-control-driven CLI running on your machine). It does not work for a remotely-hosted copy of this server.
Same rules as the Claude CLI: sanctioned first-party surface under your own subscription. Reusing a subscription token against the raw OpenAI API from a third-party app is a separate, prohibited thing; this feature does not do that.
Grok via your subscription (first-party Grok Build CLI)
⚠️ grok-cli members are currently DISABLED (v0.2.64). grok's tool lockdown does not work:
--tools ''is read by the CLI as "flag unset" and enables its full built-in tool set — including a shell — while--permission-mode bypassPermissions(required for headless use) auto-approves every call. This was verified live with a proof-of-execution marker, and--tools nonewas verified to fail the same way. Because a grok judge is fed every other member's untrusted text, a single crafted line was arbitrary command execution as your user. No replacement value has been verified yet, so the provider now fails closed with a clear error rather than shipping an unverified guard.GROK_CLI_UNSAFE_ACCEPT_RCE=truere-enables it for testing only.
Set GROK_CLI=true (or a GROK_TIER above free) to add council members that run through xAI's locally-installed Grok Build CLI (grok -p / --prompt-json) instead of the X.AI API. Inference runs under whatever your grok CLI is logged in with — typically your own SuperGrok / X Premium+ / Heavy subscription — so these members don't consume API credits. They appear as grok-cli:grok-4.5 (or grok-cli:<model>).
Behavior & requirements
The
grokCLI must be installed and logged in. SetGROK_CLI_PATHif it isn't onPATH.Each call shells out to
grokwith all tools disabled (--tools '') and--permission-mode bypassPermissions(required for headless use — without it the CLI silently cancels the turn instead of completing).XAI_API_KEYis stripped from the nested call, because the CLI accepts it as an alternate auth path that would otherwise switch billing to per-token instead of the subscription.Images are passed as native
--prompt-jsoncontent blocks (no Read-tool or-i-flag workaround needed — the CLI accepts structured image content directly).A text-only prompt (the common case) is written to a temp file and passed via
--prompt-filerather than inline, avoiding the OS argv-length limit a largecontext/files/git-diff attachment or judge prompt could otherwise hit. An image-bearing call still passes--prompt-jsoninline (no file-based channel exists for that content-block shape), so the same argv-length exposure remains there, bounded by the existing image size caps.Unlike Claude/ChatGPT's CLI members, Grok defaults to
free(opt-in) — setGROK_TIERabovefreeorGROK_CLI=trueexplicitly to add it to the auto-populated council, since this is a newer provider added on top of an existing install base.
Where it works: anywhere the grok binary actually executes (this machine, or a /remote-control-driven CLI running on your machine). It does not work for a remotely-hosted copy of this server.
Same rules as the Claude/Codex CLIs: sanctioned first-party surface under your own subscription. Reusing a subscription token against the raw X.AI API from a third-party app is a separate, prohibited thing; this feature does not do that.
OpenAI-compatible server format
Comma-separated list of name:host:port entries.
You can run multiple servers on different ports (e.g. different models on the same GPU host):
VLLM_SERVERS=gpu1:192.168.1.10:8000,gpu2:192.168.1.10:8001
TRTLLM_SERVERS=trt-main:192.168.1.20:8000
SGLANG_SERVERS=sgl1:192.168.1.30:30000Full URLs also work: gpu3:http://10.0.0.5:9000
Default ports: vLLM → 8000, TRT-LLM → 8000, SGLang → 30000
Council defaults
Variable | Description | Default |
| Comma-separated model IDs | (empty — use |
| Judge model ID or |
|
|
|
|
| Max deconfliction iterations |
|
| How many Claude Code sessions you run AT ONCE on this machine. Subscription pool ceilings (chatgpt/claude/grok/ollama-cloud) are divided by this so N per-process servers together stay near your plan's intended concurrency instead of running N× over it; API-key and local pools are untouched. |
|
| Parallel tool executions inside one claude-cli member call ( | seeded |
|
|
|
| Default reasoning depth for every member and the judge: | (unset — but a brand-new install seeds |
Performance & output
Variable | Description | Default |
| Max output tokens requested per completion. Clamped per-model to fit each server's context window (Ollama |
|
| Max simultaneous requests to cloud members (Ollama cloud |
|
| Max simultaneous requests to local models; |
|
| Attempts per completion before giving up on an empty/failed response |
|
| Per-completion wall-clock timeout (ms) for text-only calls. Default 5 min — local Ollama models run sequentially, so a busy box needs headroom. Honoured verbatim by every provider, including the subscription CLIs (no 300s floor). A member cut by this timeout is flagged in the result ( |
|
| Per-completion timeout (ms) used instead when |
|
|
|
|
Input send-caps (bound what the tool feeds the council per call — a large attachment is multiplied across every member × round, so these are a real memory/latency/token amplifier, not just a per-request size). Raise them for a council of large-context models; the practical ceiling is the smallest member's context window, so sending ~1 MB (~300K tokens) to a 256K-context local member makes that member error cleanly (PromptTooLargeError) while cloud members still answer:
Variable | Description | Default |
| Inline |
|
| Total across all attached |
|
| Per-file cap |
|
| Max number of attached files |
|
|
|
|
Note on Ollama input context (
num_ctx). The tool does not setnum_ctx— it inherits your Ollama server's default. To let local models actually ingest large context, setOLLAMA_CONTEXT_LENGTHon the Ollama server (e.g.262144for 256K); the tool reads each model's real max from/api/showand fits output to it. Leavingnum_ctxto the server keeps a model loaded at one stable context size (no per-request reloads) — deliberately, so the tool never churns model loads.
The council queries members in parallel but respects these concurrency limits — cloud members share one pool and local members another, so a large council never exceeds your Ollama cloud plan's concurrent-request cap, and local models can be run sequentially to avoid GPU contention. Each pool's limit is enforced process-wide, not per-call: two ask_council/ask_council_async requests in flight at once (e.g. via the 20-slot async job queue) that both touch the same provider still share that provider's single ceiling rather than each getting their own — a concurrent request can end up waiting on a slot another request is holding, which is expected serialization, not a hang. This applies equally to the judge — categorization, pooling, dossier-building, and final synthesis calls draw from the same pool as the member they're judging, not a separate unbounded channel.
Model ID format
provider:model
provider/serverId:model ← for named multi-server setupsExamples:
ollama:llama3
ollama:mistral:7b-instruct-q4_K_M
openai:gpt-4o
openai:o1-mini
anthropic:claude-opus-4-5
xai:grok-4
vllm/gpu1:meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct
trtllm/trt-main:mistralai/Mistral-7B-v0.1
sglang/sgl1:deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1MCP Tools
list_models
Discover all models across every configured provider.
{ "filter_provider": "ollama" }Returns model IDs, parameter size, family, disk size — everything you need to fill configure_council.
configure_council
Update the council at runtime (changes persist for the session).
{
"models": ["ollama:llama3", "ollama:mistral", "openai:gpt-4o"],
"judge_model": "openai:gpt-4o",
"response_mode": "deconflicted",
"max_deconflict_rounds": 4,
"reasoning_effort": "high"
}All fields are optional — only supplied fields are updated. models is capped at 100 entries. output_file_location (absolute path) sets where per-ask member scratch directories are created — default the OS temp directory; stale run dirs older than 7 days are swept at boot. reasoning_effort sets the council-wide default reasoning depth (see Reasoning effort); it persists across reloads and is overridable per call on ask_council. Pass "auto" to clear it back to each model's own default — distinct from "none", which actively asks every backend for no reasoning. harness_tool_concurrency (1–64) sets how many tool executions one claude-cli member may run in parallel inside its own session — see HARNESS_TOOL_CONCURRENCY in the env table for why it is set explicitly on every spawn.
Parameter names are strict. An unrecognized parameter is rejected with an error, never silently ignored — so a call that doesn't do what you meant fails loudly instead of returning a cheerful
"status": "updated"while changing nothing. The error names the offending key, suggests the intended one, and lists the valid parameters. Two easy slips worth knowing: the council is set withmodelsbut reported (byget_council_config/council_status) asmembers; and the response mode isresponse_modehere butmodeonask_council.
ask_council
Send a question to the full council.
{
"question": "What is the best way to handle errors in a distributed system?",
"mode": "deconflicted",
"max_deconflict_rounds": 3
}mode, max_deconflict_rounds, and reasoning_effort override the configured defaults for this call only. output_file (absolute .md/.txt/.json path) has the server write the complete result to disk after the run — every member's full response, judge output, sources, usage, and member-written files inlined — because members themselves can never write to caller-chosen paths. member_file_output grants each claude-cli/codex-cli member a private, server-created scratch directory and tells it to save long findings there as .md files; they are collected into memberFiles after the run (and inlined into output_file reports). It defaults ON for full_repo_access/web asks — exactly where full findings otherwise get truncated to fit one response — and OFF for plain asks; pass true/false to force either way. Write access is confined per-harness, verified live: claude-cli gets the Write tool gated by an Edit(//scratch/**) permission rule (the repo under review stays read-only — probed: the scratch write landed, the repo write was blocked in the same call), and codex-cli flips to its workspace-write sandbox with the scratch dir as the workspace ("sandbox permissions deny writes outside the workspace", with reads unconfined so repo review keeps working) — except when the repo itself lives inside the OS tmpdir, where codex stays read-only because workspace-write would make tmp writable too. In deconflicted mode, set "verbose": true to include the initial categorization, every member's per-round responses, and the round-by-round re-categorization alongside the final synthesis. In pooled mode, "verbose": true adds the initial (round-0) raw member responses.
Reasoning effort. "reasoning_effort" sets how hard the council thinks, on one canonical scale — none · minimal · low · medium · high · xhigh · max:
{
"question": "Design a migration path off this schema.",
"mode": "dialectic",
"reasoning_effort": "max"
}Effort resolves in three tiers, strongest first: member_efforts (per model, per call) ▸ reasoning_effort (per call) ▸ the configured default. So one setting governs the whole ask by default — deeply-reasoned answers reconciled by an equally deep judge — while a member that prices effort very differently can be pinned individually:
{ "question": "…", "reasoning_effort": "xhigh", "member_efforts": { "gpt-5.6-sol": "medium" } }Keys match a member (or the judge — it's a model too) by full label, model name, or unique substring; an unknown or ambiguous key is rejected loudly, never silently dropped. This exists for a measured reason: the codex member at max ran 25× its own low-effort latency (638s worst vs 17s), while the others stayed usable — one dial for the whole council forces a choice between starving the fast members and stalling on the slow one.
A brand-new install starts at high — a council is worth more when its members actually think. That seed is written to state.json on the first run only, so from then on it is an ordinary setting you own: change it with configure_council, or pass "auto" there to clear it back to each model's own default. It is deliberately not the plugin option's default value, because a userConfig default would re-apply on every update; an install that already exists and never set an effort keeps running at model defaults, so upgrading never silently changes how hard your council thinks or how much quota it burns. An explicit REASONING_EFFORT outranks the seed.
Each backend supports a different slice of the scale, so a level it doesn't accept is clamped to its nearest supported one, never errored — a council-wide setting must not shrink a mixed council to whichever members happen to share a vocabulary. Ties clamp downward (the cheaper side).
Member type | Knob used | Levels it accepts | Example clamp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| extended thinking | derived from the level |
|
Two members that can't honour the request at all are handled rather than dropped: an Ollama model with no thinking support, and an OpenAI-compatible server that rejects the parameter, are each retried once without it, so they still answer (at their own depth) instead of failing the call.
Cost. Higher levels buy depth with time and subscription quota, and the multiplier is members × rounds — a max run of a 5-member deconflicted council is a materially bigger spend than a low one. set_council_timeouts may need raising alongside it.
Which round produced an answer. Every member response carries a phase tag naming the round it came from, so a caller reading raw JSON can tell the rounds apart without inferring it from the surrounding field name:
| Round |
| Round 0 — each member's initial, independent answer (every mode) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is defense in depth, not the primary mechanism. Rounds are already separated structurally: each is its own awaited call whose results land in a dedicated array at a fixed per-member index, so a slow member's answer can never arrive late and be swept into the next round — a member that times out simply leaves an errored entry in its own round's slot (and sets judgeDegraded). The tag puts that round on the record rather than leaving it implied by the container, so a future refactor that merges or forwards responses between collections can't silently turn a thesis into an antithesis. The dialectic dossier prompt — the one place two rounds are shown to the judge together — labels each entry from its own phase for the same reason.
Web access. "web_access": true lets members SEARCH THE WEB for that call, so they research current facts instead of answering from training data. Off by default — it costs latency and subscription quota, and it pulls untrusted text into the council.
{ "question": "Which US steakhouses currently hold three Michelin stars?", "web_access": true }Who can actually research depends on whether a member has an agentic tool loop to grant a search tool inside:
Member | How it researches |
|
|
|
|
| web tools re-enabled in |
bare | automatically re-pointed through the claude-CLI harness for the call, since Ollama serves an Anthropic-Messages endpoint — so it researches too |
| cannot — one flattened completion, no tool turn |
Every result then carries a webRouting block naming researched, fromMemory (with the reason), and routedViaHarness. That exists so a partly-researched council is never read as a fully-researched one — the judge reconciles those answers as peers, so the split has to be visible.
Known limitation (verified live). An open-weight model driven through the harness may emit its OWN native tool-call markup as plain text instead of an executable tool call — observed with kimi-k3:cloud at --effort max, while the same call at low searched correctly and cited a source. No search runs in that case, so the provider now rejects such a reply as a failed completion (retried, then reported as a member error) rather than letting the markup reach the judge as a position.
Timeouts adapt to the member, not the other way round. Throughput across a mixed council spans roughly 20× — a local model on Apple silicon runs ~10 tok/s, Ollama cloud ~200, the hosted APIs 20–50 — so a single per-completion deadline is either wasted on the fast members or a guillotine for the slow ones. Two things follow. Calls with full_repo_access or web_access use the longer REPO_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS budget, because both pull far more content (a repo tree, several fetched pages) and output length scales with it. And any member that has genuinely needed longer before is given at least that again, learned from its own history rather than configured — capped, and only ever raised by a successful round, so a timeout can never inflate the budget that caused it. The history is kept per workload, because the workloads differ by more than the models do: a member that answers a question in 8s can legitimately need minutes to review a repo. A plain measurement does raise the heavy floor (heavy work is a superset — it cannot be faster), but a heavy measurement never raises the plain one, since a long repo review says nothing about a short question.
Capability detection. A member on an engine the council has no built-in knowledge of is probed, not refused — one small completion to find a working harness, plus (only when web access is wanted) one tool-call probe, since a model can answer perfectly and still be unable to execute a tool call. The result is written to state.json harnessCapability and reused, so the cost is paid at most once per model per 30 days, across restarts and plugin updates. A timeout is recorded as inconclusive rather than as a verdict, so a slow machine never permanently condemns a capable model.
Built for many sessions at once. Several Claude Code sessions each spawn their own council server against the same ~/.config/model-council — and that is now a first-class deployment, not an accident. A member list changed in one session is re-adopted by every running session on its next ask (the one setting with account-wide quota cost and no per-call escape); all other settings apply to the changing session now and to new sessions later, and the tool replies say so instead of overclaiming. Set COUNCIL_SESSIONS to your usual session count so the subscription concurrency ceilings are shared rather than multiplied. Background jobs carry their owner's pid, so one session's reload never falsifies another's in-flight work, any session can poll any session's jobs, and retention never lets a burst of fresh runs evict a finished-but-unfetched result. A corrupt state.json is quarantined to state.json.corrupt-* for recovery instead of being silently rebuilt from defaults.
Predict, repeat, survive. Three quality-of-life behaviours. estimate_council_cost predicts an ask's member completions, judge calls and wall-clock before you run it — calibrated from what each configured member has actually needed on this machine (the same learned history behind per-member timeouts; members with no history use conservative defaults and are flagged measured: false); it makes no model calls. An identical ask repeated within 15 minutes returns the cached result instantly, marked with a cache: { hit, ageMs } block — only clean results are cached (anything degraded, timed-out, or carrying a member error always re-runs), any change to the question, attachments, mode, effort, web access, membership or judge is a miss, and no_cache: true forces a fresh run. Asks with full_repo_access bypass the cache entirely — members read the live working tree, whose contents can't be in the key, so a hit during active editing would serve verdicts about code that no longer exists. And background jobs now survive /reload-plugins: each ask_council_async job is mirrored to <state file>.jobs/, so a finished-but-unfetched result is still there after a reload; a job that was mid-flight when its OWNING server died can't be resumed and comes back as an explicit interrupted error rather than an eternal running. Several session servers share the jobs directory, so each record carries its owner's pid: a booting server only declares a job interrupted when that owner is actually dead, a running job with a live owner is pollable from any session (reads its freshest disk state), and retention evicts errors before a done-but-unfetched result — the record the persistence exists to protect.
What a researched result carries. Every result now includes usage (member completions and per-member wall-clock — judge calls excluded — so the cost of an ask is legible rather than discovered at the quota), and judgeIsMember: true when the judge also answered as a member, since its reconciliation then includes its own answer. With web_access on, webRouting.sources consolidates every URL the members cited, deduplicated and ordered by corroboration, so "3 of 4 members cite AP for this" is a fact you can read instead of reconstruct by diffing member blocks. And when a conflict's positions differ in verifiable backing — one side cites a source, the other doesn't — the judge adds an assessment naming which position is better supported and why; equal backing means no field, never a fabricated tiebreak. Capability warnings also now clear themselves: a model measured tool-capable (by probe or by a successful researched round) stops wearing its family's seeded caveat.
Security. Page content is untrusted input that flows into member answers and then into judge prompts — the same trust class as context/files/git-diff, and every member prompt says so explicitly. Grant it deliberately.
Completion markers & timeout cuts. Every completed answer is wrapped in ═══════ BEGINNING OF RESPONSE ═══════ / ═══════ END OF RESPONSE ═══════ delimiters (the JSON payload sits intact on its own lines between them — strip the first and last line to parse). The markers are the completion signal: the tool returns the moment the council finishes, so it never waits the full timeout just because the timeout is set. If a member's completion is cut by the per-completion timeout, the result carries timeoutNotice: "RESPONSE TIMED OUT, INCREASE TIMEOUT IF MESSAGE IS CUT" plus a timedOutMembers array of the cut labels — this surfaces even under verbose: false. Raise the budget with set_council_timeouts (or REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS / REPO_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS) and re-ask.
Attach context / files. Add "context" (inline background text) and/or "files" (an array of local file paths). Files are read from disk and fenced with a ----- FILE:<nonce>: <path> ----- header (a random per-call token, so a file/diff whose content contains a fake fence marker can't forge a boundary the model would mistake for real) so every member sees them as labelled context alongside the question. Caps: 256 KB/file, 768 KB total, 20 files, 768 KB for "context" itself, 256 KB for "question" — for anything larger than the question cap, pass it via context instead. A missing/oversized/binary file (or an oversized question/context) returns a clear error rather than being silently dropped or truncated. Note: files/images read any path the server process can read, with no root restriction — the MCP caller is trusted the same way a local Read tool call would be.
{
"question": "What's wrong with this auth flow?",
"mode": "dialectic",
"files": ["src/auth.ts"],
"context": "Public SaaS signup path; must be OWASP-clean."
}Repo review — auto-attach a git diff. Instead of hand-listing every changed file via "files", add "git_ref" and the server runs git diff locally and attaches the result as context:
{
"question": "Review this diff for bugs and regressions.",
"mode": "categorized",
"git_ref": "uncommitted"
}git_ref is one of "uncommitted" (staged + unstaged vs HEAD — the usual "review my changes" case), "staged", "unstaged", or any git revision/range ("main..HEAD", "HEAD~3..HEAD", a commit SHA). "git_repo" defaults to the server's working directory, which for a Claude Code plugin session is normally your project root — pass it explicitly if it isn't (e.g. a standalone MCP install launched from elsewhere). Errors clearly (not silently) on an invalid ref, a ref that looks like a git option rather than a revision (rejected outright — no legitimate revision starts with -), a path that isn't a git repo, no changes found for the ref, or a diff too large to attach automatically (> 512 KB — narrow the range, or fall back to "files" for specific files). Note: like plain git diff, this doesn't show brand-new untracked files — only changes to files git already knows about. This only reads a diff on the server's own machine via git diff (no shell, args passed as an array, external diff/textconv and repo-configured core.fsmonitor/core.hooksPath all disabled, clean/smudge/process filter drivers neutralized (each configured filter.<name>.{clean,smudge,process} overridden to a no-op, so an untrusted repo's filter command can't execute during a working-tree diff — this disables the filter itself, so it's complete across all three attribute layers, .gitattributes/.git/info/attributes/core.attributesFile, and works on every Git version), a 15s subprocess timeout, run against the same canonicalized/realpath'd directory the repo-root validation itself checked) — it does not give any council member live/agentic git access; API-keyed members never gain filesystem access at all, and the CLI-based members (claude-cli/codex-cli/grok-cli) stay locked down exactly as before.
Full repo-wide review. git_ref/files cover "review this diff" / "review these files" — for a genuine repo-wide review (architecture, cross-cutting concerns, anything a diff or a hand-picked file list can't show), add "full_repo_access": true:
{
"question": "Review the whole repo: architecture, risky areas, what you'd improve.",
"mode": "individual",
"full_repo_access": true
}⚠️ This is a real permission grant, not a convenience flag — and the two providers enforce it differently. claude-cli gets Read/Grep/Glob scoped to the repo root via --add-dir, an enforced boundary — verified empirically that a Read attempt outside the granted directory is denied by the CLI itself. codex-cli points its working root (-C) at the real repo instead of the usual empty directory, staying inside its read-only sandbox (writes are always blocked, everywhere) — but -C is only a starting point, not a read boundary: codex's read-only sandbox permits reading any file the OS-level user can read, anywhere on the machine, verified live (this is pre-existing behavior of every codex-cli call, not something this mode introduces — the mode's system prompt just actively invites exploration, so the practical likelihood of wandering outside the repo goes up even though the technical capability was always there). Codex is instructed to stay inside the repo root as a soft, unenforced guardrail. An Ollama-harness member (auto-populated curated :cloud models or explicit CLAUDE_CLI_OLLAMA_MODELS, above) is enforced identically to claude-cli — it's the same harness — but sends repo contents to whichever Ollama backend answers instead of Claude's. Neither provider can write, edit, or run commands that mutate anything. Defaults to false; the calling agent should confirm with the user before setting it true for an interactive request — it's reasonable to set it autonomously only for an unattended review step you already control (e.g. an end-of-workflow code review with no user waiting on a prompt). Other council members (openai/anthropic/xai/ollama/self-hosted, and grok-cli) are unaffected — they have no filesystem/tool concept in this architecture, so there's nothing to grant. Repo root is "git_repo" if set, else the server's working directory (see above) — validated the same way git_ref is (must resolve to a real git work tree, not an arbitrary directory, and not just inside a .git metadata directory) before anything is granted; your home directory is specifically rejected even when it is itself a valid git repository (e.g. a dotfiles checkout), since that's a common, high-blast-radius case no git-plumbing check can otherwise distinguish from a legitimate small project; the validated path is also canonicalized (symlinks resolved) before being granted onward, so a symlink in the path can't be retargeted between validation and the CLI call to redirect access somewhere never checked. This mode necessarily reveals file contents to whatever cloud subscription is answering (claude-cli/codex-cli run under your own Claude/ChatGPT login) — don't use it in a repo (or, for codex, on a machine) containing secrets/credentials you wouldn't otherwise send to that provider.
Attach images (vision). Add "images" (an array of local png/jpg/jpeg/gif/webp paths) to ask a vision question. Vision support is auto-detected per member with a two-stage check, then cached:
Cheap negative prefilter (per provider): Ollama's
/api/showcapabilitiesfield; OpenAI-compatible (vLLM/SGLang/TRT-LLM/OpenAI/X.AI) and Anthropic send a real functional probe (a small test image +max_tokens: 1, since neither advertises vision via metadata). A "no" here is trustworthy and skips stage 2.claude-cli/codex-clihave no cheap signal and go straight to stage 2.Behavioral OCR-challenge confirmation: a stage-1 "yes" is only trusted once the model has proven it can actually read pixels — it's sent a small, high-contrast rendered image containing a random 4-digit code (10 are pre-generated; the exact code is never in the prompt) and graded on whether its reply contains that exact code. This step exists because a stage-1 "yes" is not reliable on its own: some OpenAI-compatible servers accept an
image_urlpart and silently ignore it for a non-vision model (confirmed live against a self-hosted SGLang endpoint — 200 OK, fabricated answer), and Ollama'scapabilitiesmetadata can be stale for custom/quantized builds (MLX conversions, GGUF imports) that dropped the vision projector while the tag still saysvision(documented upstream: ollama#9967, and reproduced live with a local-mlxmodel that claimed vision support but denied ever receiving an image). Two challenge images are tried per model (pass if either is read correctly) to absorb one unlucky misread; only a clean, non-empty wrong answer counts as a real failure — a timeout or empty response is treated as inconclusive and retried next time, never cached as a false negative.
codex-cli attaches images via its first-party -i/--image flag (written to a temp file, passed directly — no workaround needed). claude-cli has no image flag, so images go to a narrowly-scoped --tools Read --add-dir <freshTempDir> (a fresh temp directory containing nothing but the image; --add-dir is an enforced permission boundary, verified empirically — a Read attempt outside the granted directory is denied by the CLI itself, not merely discouraged; every other lockdown — no MCP, no other tools, no session persistence — is unchanged, and calls with no images keep the original fully-closed --tools "").
Only the confirmed vision-capable members are queried — everyone else is skipped for that call, never receiving the image in any form, correct or garbled. The routing decision is reported back in visionRouting. Caps: 8 MB/image, 24 MB total, 6 images. Passing an image to "files" (which reads as UTF-8 text) is rejected with a pointer to use "images" instead — that's the one other route to sending a model garbled data.
In a multi-round mode (pooled, dialectic, deconflicted), the image is re-attached to every member-facing round — reconsideration, defense, selection, deconfliction — not just the initial answer, so a member revising its view of the image is still looking at it rather than working from its own earlier description. It is never sent to the judge (pool-digest / dossier / categorization calls work from members' text responses only).
First vision question against a never-before-verified member costs one extra round trip (the OCR challenge) before the real question is asked — a few seconds for a fast model, longer for a CLI subprocess or a slow local model. The verified result is cached per model and persisted to disk (the same state file that already survives restarts for your tiers and council edits), so this cost is paid at most once per model, not once per session — a
/reload-pluginsor server restart does not re-run the OCR challenge for a model already proven (in)capable, which matters most on a slower machine juggling several local models. Each cached result carries a 30-day TTL, so a stale "not vision-capable" from before a later Ollama pull or a provider fixing a bug eventually self-heals with a fresh probe rather than sticking forever. The detection round also respects the same per-provider concurrency limits as a real question (notablylocal, typically 1) — verifying multiple local Ollama models' vision at once is itself a real completion call per model, and firing them all concurrently can thrash memory on hardware that can only hold one large local model in RAM/VRAM at a time, which previously showed up as genuinely vision-capable local models being (transiently) misreported as not vision-capable under load. In practice, local vision-capable models vary widely in reading accuracy on dense-text screenshots even once verified — Claude/ChatGPT (viaclaude-cli/codex-cli) and a properly-sized self-hosted vision model both read fine text/numbers accurately; small local models can pass the OCR challenge while still misreading specifics in a real, denser image. The routing/format guarantee above is unconditional; read quality on your actual question depends on the model you point it at.
ask_council(the synchronous call, notask_council_async) reports progress via standard MCPnotifications/progresswhen the caller supplies a progress token — most MCP clients do this transparently, surfacing a live status line ("Checking vision capability: ollama:gemma4:12b (2/5)", "Asking claude-cli:opus...") instead of a silent wait during a slow, multi-member vision-detection round.
On Ollama, avoid
-mlx-tagged models for vision. Ollama's native MLX runner (Apple Silicon) currently has an incomplete multimodal pipeline — no image-input stage is wired in yet at the runner level, and this is a documented, still-open gap (ollama#16700), not a fluke of one quantization. It shows up two ways: some-mlxbuilds simply don't claimvisionin/api/show(gemma4:31b-mlxreports[completion, tools, thinking]— no vision — where the regulargemma4:12breports[completion, vision, audio, tools, thinking], verified directly); others still claimvisionbut the runtime can't actually use it (qwen3.6:35b-mlxreportsvisionyet denies ever receiving an image). Both shapes are already handled correctly by the two-stage check above — the "no claim" case is filtered cheaply at stage 1, the "false claim" case is caught at stage 2 — so nothing breaks either way, but you'll get more members answering a vision question if you pull the regular (non--mlx) tag of a vision model instead.
{
"question": "What's the council verdict shown in this screenshot?",
"mode": "individual",
"images": ["/Users/me/Desktop/result.png"]
}{
"mode": "individual",
"responses": [ { "label": "ollama:llava3", "response": "…" } ],
"visionRouting": {
"imagesAttached": 1,
"queriedVisionModels": ["ollama:llava3"],
"skippedNonVision": ["ollama:llama3", "claude-cli:opus"]
}
}Individual result
{
"mode": "individual",
"question": "...",
"responses": [
{ "label": "ollama:llama3", "response": "...", "latencyMs": 1240 },
{ "label": "openai:gpt-4o", "response": "...", "latencyMs": 843 }
]
}Categorized result
{
"mode": "categorized",
"question": "...",
"commonAgreement": "All models agree that ...",
"complementary": [
{ "aspect": "performance", "models": ["ollama:llama3"], "insight": "..." }
],
"conflicting": [
{
"id": "conflict-1",
"topic": "retry strategy",
"positions": [
{ "models": ["ollama:llama3"], "position": "exponential backoff" },
{ "models": ["openai:gpt-4o"], "position": "circuit breaker preferred" }
]
}
],
"judgeModel": "openai:gpt-4o"
}judgeDegraded: true is added (empty conflicting/complementary, commonAgreement: null) only when the judge
model failed to produce usable/parseable output — a real "the council agreed on everything" result never sets it.
Deconflicted result
{
"mode": "deconflicted",
"question": "...",
"roundsTaken": 2,
"maxRounds": 3,
"deconflictionScore": 75,
"resolved": 3,
"totalConflicts": 4,
"finalSynthesis": "The council recommends ...",
"unresolvedConflicts": [ { "id": "conflict-3", "topic": "...", "positions": [...] } ],
"roundHistory": [
{ "round": 1, "conflictsEntering": 4, "conflictsResolved": 2, "conflictsRemaining": 2 },
{ "round": 2, "conflictsEntering": 2, "conflictsResolved": 1, "conflictsRemaining": 1 }
],
"judgeModel": "openai:gpt-4o"
}Deconfliction score: resolved / totalConflicts × 100, computed to hold two invariants
regardless of how many rounds ran: it is 100 iff unresolvedConflicts is empty, and it is
always strictly below 100 while any conflict remains open — resolved also never exceeds
totalConflicts. This matters because the judge can reword a still-open conflict between rounds
(see the exact-match note below); the topic is carried forward rather than silently dropped, which
means the same underlying disagreement can end up resolving under a wording that was never part of
the original totalConflicts count. Rather than trying to perfectly attribute a later resolution
back to the original conflict it descended from (which would need an ID-keyed judge protocol), the
score is clamped to stay numerically honest at the cost of some precision in the edge case.
judgeDegraded: true marks any run a judge failure affected — never set on a genuine outcome.
Two cases: if the judge failed on the initial categorization, no conflict count could even be
established, so deconflictionScore is null (not a fabricated 100 %). If a later round's
judge output failed, the loop stops without inventing a resolution for the conflicts that round
was assessing — deconflictionScore is still a real number computed from whichever rounds did
succeed, but treat it as a pessimistic lower bound: conflicts left "unresolved" may only look
that way because the judge never got to re-assess them, not because the council truly disagreed.
Round-to-round resolution matching is exact (case/whitespace-normalized), not fuzzy: each round's categorization prompt is told the currently open conflict topics and instructed to reuse them verbatim if a response still reflects the same disagreement, which is what makes exact matching reliable — a judge that quietly rewords a still-open topic reads as that conflict having resolved and a new one appearing, rather than the topic silently vanishing into a false match.
Pooled result (Delphi)
{
"mode": "pooled",
"question": "...",
"judgeModel": "openai:gpt-4o",
"initialPool": {
"options": [
{ "answer": "Exponential backoff", "rationale": "<reasons merged from everyone who said it>", "models": ["ollama:llama3", "openai:gpt-4o"] }
]
},
"reconsidered": [
{ "label": "ollama:llama3", "response": "<fresh answer after seeing the neutral pool>", "latencyMs": 1120 }
],
"finalPool": { "options": [ { "answer": "...", "rationale": "...", "models": ["..."] } ] }
}Why pooled exists: the deconflicted loop shows each member the labelled factions ([modelA, modelB]: X) and asks them to "agree with one of the existing positions" — that is social proof, and minority views tend to collapse toward the visible plurality in a single round, erasing the decorrelation the council exists to surface. pooled follows the Delphi method instead: the judge distils all answers into a neutral digest — one entry per distinct answer, rationale merged from everyone who gave it, but with no counts, no attribution, and no ranking — then re-asks members the original question against that digest ("in no particular order, here is what others said — what do you think?"). Members reconsider on substance, not popularity. The models field on each option is recorded for your analysis and is never shown back to members. No final winner is declared: compare initialPool vs. finalPool to see whether — and how much — opinion actually moved.
judgeDegraded: true on either digest means the judge failed to produce usable output for that step — its options: []
is a fallback, not a genuine "nothing distinct to pool" result. dialectic carries the same flag at the top level, covering
both the shared digest step and its own pros/cons dossier step.
Dialectic result (thesis → antithesis → synthesis)
{
"mode": "dialectic",
"question": "...",
"judgeModel": "openai:gpt-4o",
"defenses": [
{ "label": "ollama:llama3", "response": "<defends its pick, argues the others are weaker>", "latencyMs": 3900 }
],
"prosCons": [
{
"answer": "Exponential backoff",
"pros": ["adapts to load", "avoids overwhelming a struggling dependency"],
"cons": ["more complex", "longer worst-case latency"],
"championedBy": ["ollama:llama3", "openai:gpt-4o"]
}
],
"selections": [
{ "label": "ollama:llama3", "response": "#1 ... #2 ... #3 ... (with the trade-off accepted)", "latencyMs": 4100 }
]
}Where pooled is deliberately neutral, dialectic is deliberately adversarial. Step 1 (antithesis) shows every member the full option set and asks it to defend its own initial pick and argue why each alternative is not better — personalised per member. The judge then distils those defenses and critiques into a balanced pros/cons dossier (prosCons), one entry per option with arguments for and against. Step 2 (synthesis) shows that dossier to every member and asks for a fresh ranked top-3, accepting the main trade-off of each choice. championedBy records who originally proposed each option (for your analysis). Use it when you want each option stress-tested from both sides before anyone commits — the opposite of the social-proof collapse deconflicted can produce. Add "verbose": true to include the thesis (round-0) responses.
ask_council_async
Same inputs as ask_council (including context / files / git_ref), but starts the run in the background and returns a job_id immediately — so a long deconfliction/dialectic run, or a council with slow local models, doesn't block you. At most 20 jobs may be running at once (finished jobs don't count against this — poll get_council_result and start more once one completes); a 21st concurrent call is rejected with a clear error rather than silently queued.
{ "status": "running", "job_id": "6f2c…", "mode": "dialectic", "members": 8 }estimate_council_cost
Predict an ask's cost before running it: { mode?, web_access?, max_deconflict_rounds? } (all default to the configured values) → per-member expected latency (learned where measured, defaults where not), round structure for the mode, and wallClockMs / totalLatencyMs / completion counts. Deconflicted mode is reported as worst case (all rounds run). Read-only; makes no model calls.
get_council_result
Fetch a background run by job_id (status running → done/error, with the full result when done), or omit job_id (or pass "list": true) to list recent jobs. Jobs live in memory and are dropped on server reload.
{ "status": "done", "job_id": "6f2c…", "elapsedMs": 48210, "result": { "mode": "dialectic", … } }get_council_config
Returns current council settings plus all configured provider connections and the full env-var reference. The first field is serverVersion — the build actually answering this call.
council_status
The welcome/status readout (works in every client and install method). Returns the detected environment (local Ollama models, Ollama-cloud reachability, whether the Claude/Codex CLIs are installed and logged in), the current council members, resolved subscription tiers, per-provider concurrency, a quota warning, and hints for anything not usable. Also reports serverVersion first. Read-only.
Why
serverVersionis worth checking./reload-plugins— including--force— does not restart an already-running plugin MCP server process, so after/plugin updatethe session may still be talking to the previous build, and several sessions on one machine can be served by different builds while sharing a singlestate.json.serverVersionanswers "which build is this?" in one call, instead of inferring it from behaviour. It is read frompackage.jsonat load, so it cannot drift from the version everything else reports; if that file is unreadable it readsunknownrather than failing the call.
setup_council
Set subscription tiers (chatgpt, claude, ollama), then re-detect and auto-populate the council with everything usable. Persists across reloads. Concurrency and newly-registered providers take full effect after a /reload-plugins.
set_council_timeouts
Change the per-completion timeouts at runtime — run_timeout_ms (text-only calls) and/or repo_timeout_ms (calls with full_repo_access). Both in milliseconds (1000–3600000 — the ceiling is per completion, not per run: an ask_council is members × rounds + judge calls and legitimately takes longer). The same bound applies through every door that can set one — this tool, the REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS/REPO_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS env vars, a timeouts block in state.json, and the plugin settings UI — and an out-of-range value is clamped with a warning, never silently. Persists across reloads and overrides the REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS / REPO_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS env defaults; takes effect on the next ask_council, no reload needed. Omit either to leave it unchanged. Returns the now-effective values. Unknown keys are rejected (the schema is strict), so a misspelled parameter errors rather than silently no-op'ing. council_status surfaces both current values under timeouts.
Use it when a member answer is cut mid-generation — the result then carries a timeoutNotice (see ask_council).
Slash commands (Claude Code plugin only)
/model-council:setup— interactive tier selection (arrow-select menus) →setup_council./model-council:status— renderscouncil_status.
Standalone MCP installs call the setup_council / council_status tools directly for the same result.
Deconfliction algorithm
1. Query all council members in parallel → N raw responses
2. Judge model categorises → common / complementary / M conflicts
3. If M = 0 → synthesise final answer, score = 100 %
4. For each round r in 1..maxRounds:
a. Ask all members specifically about each open conflict
b. Judge re-categorises conflict responses
c. Conflicts where positions converge → marked resolved
d. If no conflicts remain → break
5. Score = resolvedCount / M × 100
6. Judge synthesises final answer, noting any unresolved conflictsExample: full multi-provider setup
{
"mcpServers": {
"model-council": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/model-council-mcp/bundle/server.cjs"],
"env": {
"OLLAMA_ADDRESS": "http://localhost:11434",
"OPENAI_API_KEY": "sk-...",
"ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "sk-ant-...",
"XAI_API_KEY": "xai-...",
"VLLM_SERVERS": "gpu1:192.168.1.10:8000,gpu2:192.168.1.10:8001",
"SGLANG_SERVERS": "sgl1:192.168.1.30:30000",
"COUNCIL_MODELS": "ollama:llama3,ollama:mistral,openai:gpt-4o,anthropic:claude-sonnet-4-5,xai:grok-4",
"JUDGE_MODEL": "anthropic:claude-opus-4-5",
"RESPONSE_MODE": "deconflicted",
"MAX_DECONFLICT_ROUNDS": "3"
}
}
}
}Background
The council's value comes from decorrelation: routing a question to independent models from different families and providers surfaces systematic biases and blind spots that any single model — or a set of correlated ones — would hide. The categorized and deconflicted modes make that disagreement explicit and then work to resolve it.
This design is informed by The Mirror Law, which shows that a learner trained against a single reference reproduces that reference's error field — so the bias is invisible from the loss curve alone, and a decorrelated second reference is what makes the hidden bias observable.
Sarihan, Tom. The Mirror Law: Reference Quality and the Transfer of Systematic Bias in Imitation and Distillation. Preprint, 2026. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21282027. Code and materials: github.com/tsarihan/MirrorLaw.
@article{sarihan2026mirror,
title = {The Mirror Law: Reference Quality and the Transfer of Systematic Bias in Imitation and Distillation},
author = {Sarihan, Tom},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.21282027},
note = {Preprint}
}FAQ
How is this different from claude-council (hex/claude-council)?
They solve different problems. claude-council gives Claude Code the opinions of other cloud coding agents (Gemini, GPT/Codex, Grok, Perplexity) with a rich coding-workflow UX (roles, vision, tmux streaming). model-council convenes a panel across your own infrastructure — local Ollama, self-hosted vLLM / SGLang / TensorRT-LLM, and your Claude + ChatGPT subscriptions — and reconciles it with decision-theoretic modes (Delphi pooled, dialectic, scored deconfliction), not just side-by-side + debate. Concretely, only model-council: (a) runs fully local / offline / private, (b) auto-discovers self-hosted models and their context windows, and (c) puts Claude itself on the panel. It also ships as a standalone MCP server, so it works in Claude Desktop and any MCP client, not only Claude Code.
Do I need API keys? No. Local Ollama and self-hosted servers need none; Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok members run under your existing subscriptions via the first-party claude / codex / grok CLIs. API keys are only for the optional OpenAI/Anthropic/X.AI cloud members.
Does it work in Cowork / claude.ai? No — it executes your local claude/codex/grok CLIs and reaches localhost/LAN model servers, which cloud-hosted surfaces can't do. Use it in Claude Code (plugin) or Claude Desktop (standalone MCP).
Can it review a file, a diff, a whole repo, or run without blocking? Yes — ask_council takes context / files / git_ref (auto-attaches a local git diff) / full_repo_access (WARNING: grants claude-cli/codex-cli members read-only access to the whole repo — see its section above), and ask_council_async + get_council_result run a council in the background and fetch the result when ready.
A member failed — how do I tell quota from a real error? The error text tells you, verbatim from the CLI. A member whose plan is exhausted is reported as a quota refusal carrying the provider's own wording (You've hit your usage limit ... try again at <date>, or Ollama's 402 ... your extra usage balance is empty), and it is attempted once — retrying an exhausted plan only burns wall-clock. This matters because the two CLIs hide their failures in opposite places: codex prints a banner and a full echo of the prompt to stderr before the real error, and claude --output-format json exits non-zero with empty stderr, putting the cause on stdout. Both are read now, so an out-of-quota member says so instead of failing unexplained. A quota-failed member is a partial outage, so the result is also marked judgeDegraded rather than reported as clean convergence over a silently shrunken council.
What does "judge" mean? Categorized / deconflicted / pooled / dialectic modes use one member as the judge that groups, re-questions, or distils the others. It's auto-selected as the largest member; override with judge_model.
Privacy & data handling
model-council runs entirely locally and stores nothing off your machine. Full policy: PRIVACY.md.
Where your prompts go. A question is sent only to the model endpoints you configure: your local Ollama server, any self-hosted vLLM/TRT-LLM/SGLang servers, cloud API providers you supply keys for (OpenAI/Anthropic/X.AI), Ollama
:cloudmodels (routed through Ollama's cloud infrastructure), and — for subscription members — your own localclaude/codex/grokCLIs. Cloud models (of any provider) send your prompts to that provider's cloud. Check each cloud provider's data-retention and training policies before use, and do not send personal or sensitive data to any cloud provider whose policies you have not reviewed. There is no model-council backend and no telemetry; nothing is sent to the author.Credentials. API keys are stored in your client's secure storage (system keychain) and used only to call the provider you gave them for. Subscription members run under your own Claude/ChatGPT/Grok login via the first-party CLIs; the server strips
ANTHROPIC_*/OPENAI_*/CODEX_*/XAI_API_KEYkeys from those child processes so inference is billed to your subscription, not an API key.On disk. The only file written is
~/.config/model-council/state.json(your selected tiers + council members), plus~/.codex/ Claude CLI / Grok CLI session state owned by those tools. No conversation content is persisted by this server.Subprocesses. Detection and subscription inference shell out to the locally-installed
claude,codex, andgrokbinaries (read-only sandbox for Codex; MCP/tools disabled andbypassPermissionsscoped to the nested call for Claude/Grok so they can't recurse or take actions).full_repo_access(opt-in, off by default). When set,claude-cli/codex-cli/harness members can read any file in the granted repo for that call, and their answer may include file contents from anywhere in the repo. It never grants write/execute access. For cloud members (subscription CLIs, API-keyed providers, Ollama:cloud, harness:cloud) repo contents are sent to that provider's cloud — the same data-handling considerations above apply. Don't enable it on a repo containing secrets/credentials you wouldn't send to that provider.Judge and peer trust.
categorized/deconflicted/pooled/dialecticmodes feed raw member responses into a judge-model prompt, prefixed with an explicit "treat this as data, not instructions" framing as defense-in-depth. The multi-round modes' member-facing prompts (deconfliction rounds, the pooled repoll, dialectic defense/selection) carry an equivalent framing when they show a member other members' positions — worded for a member meant to substantively engage with the content, not just classify it. Neither is a hard guarantee — a member response (especially one built from attacker-influenced content, e.g.full_repo_accesson a hostile repo) could in principle contain text crafted to steer a judge's classification or another member's answer. Treat judge-synthesized fields (commonAgreement,conflicting, pooled/dialectic digests) with the same skepticism you'd apply to any LLM output over untrusted input.
License
Apache License 2.0 — Copyright (c) 2026 Tom Sarihan (Desnet AI LLC). See LICENSE and NOTICE.
Available Tools
9 toolsask_councilA
Send a question to the model council and get a structured response. Mode: individual (each model answers separately), categorized (judge groups responses into agreement/complementary/conflicting), deconflicted (iterative loop — judge orchestrates re-questioning until conflicts resolve, returns a deconfliction score 0–100%), pooled (Delphi-style — members reconsider against a neutral, deduplicated, attribution-free pool of answers; no winner is forced, so genuine divergence is preserved), or dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis — members defend their pick and critique the rest, the judge compiles a pros/cons dossier per option, then members re-select a ranked top-3). Attach images to ask a vision question — only auto-detected vision-capable members are queried; the rest are skipped and reported in visionRouting. For a repo review, pass git_ref (e.g. "uncommitted", "main..HEAD") instead of hand-listing files — the server runs git diff locally and attaches it as context. For a full repo-wide review (not just a diff), full_repo_access (default false, WARNING: read access to the whole repo — see its param description) grants claude-cli/codex-cli members read-only browse/read access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Response mode override for this call only. | |
| files | No | Optional local file paths to read and attach as labelled context (default caps: 512 KB/file, 1.5 MB total, 32 files). Text only — use "images" for pictures. | |
| images | No | Optional local image paths (png/jpg/jpeg/gif/webp). Auto-detected vision-capable council members are queried with the image(s); members without vision support are automatically skipped for this call (see visionRouting in the result). Caps: 8 MB/image, 24 MB total, 6 images. | |
| context | No | Optional background text prepended to the question for every member. | |
| git_ref | No | Auto-attach a local `git diff` as context for a repo review, instead of hand-listing every changed file via "files". One of "uncommitted" (staged+unstaged vs HEAD), "staged", "unstaged", or a git revision/range (e.g. "main..HEAD"). Errors clearly on a bad ref, no changes, or a diff too large to attach (> 512 KB). | |
| verbose | No | deconflicted → include the initial categorization and per-round detail; pooled/dialectic → include the initial (round-0/thesis) raw member responses. | |
| git_repo | No | Repo directory to run git_ref in. Defaults to the working directory. | |
| question | Yes | The question or prompt to send to all council members. | |
| full_repo_access | No | WARNING: grants claude-cli/codex-cli repo exploration for a repo-wide review — ENFORCED DIFFERENTLY per provider. claude-cli: Read/Grep/Glob CONFINED to the repo root (real enforced boundary). codex-cli: cwd points at the repo, but its read-only sandbox does NOT confine reads to it — can read anywhere the OS user can (pre-existing behavior, not added by this flag; writes stay blocked everywhere). Defaults false; confirm with the user before setting true for an interactive call (an unattended review step you already control, e.g. end-of-workflow, may set it autonomously). Other members are unaffected. Repo root: git_repo, else cwd. | |
| reasoning_effort | No | How hard every member AND the judge think, for this call only — overrides the configured default. Higher levels give deeper answers at real cost in time and subscription quota, multiplied across members x rounds. A level the backend does not support is clamped to its nearest supported one ("max" runs as "high" on Ollama, "none" as "low" on claude-cli), so one setting works across a mixed council and no member is dropped for asking. Omit to use the configured default. | |
| max_deconflict_rounds | No | Max deconfliction rounds override for this call only. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite sparse annotations (only readOnlyHint=false), the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: the deconfliction loop and 0-100% score, vision member auto-detection and skipping, local git diff execution, full_repo_access safety warnings including codex-cli's non-confined read behavior, and reasoning_effort cost/clamping across rounds. This far exceeds annotation coverage and gives the agent a clear safety and side-effect picture.
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 description is long but information-dense, with each sentence serving a purpose: modes, vision behavior, git diff usage, full_repo_access warning, reasoning_effort. It is front-loaded with the core action, then details. It could be tightened, but for a tool with 11 parameters and multiple complex modes, the length is justified and well-organized.
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?
The tool is complex and has no output schema, yet the description covers the major behavioral outcomes: structured response, deconfliction score, visionRouting in results, verbose per-round details, and raw member responses. It does not fully describe the complete response envelope, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret core results.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It elaborates each mode into full operational semantics, explains the visionRouting effect for images, provides detailed git_ref value examples, and warns about full_repo_access enforcement differences per provider. This transforms bare parameter names into actionable usage knowledge.
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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Send a question to the model council and get a structured response.' It then enumerates distinct modes (individual, categorized, deconflicted, pooled, dialectic) and special use cases like image questions and repo review, making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_models and get_council_result.
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?
The description provides concrete guidance on when to use specific features: use git_ref for repo diffs, full_repo_access for repo-wide reviews, and images for vision questions. It explains mode selection in detail. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with ask_council_async or other sibling tools, so usage-vs-alternative guidance is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ask_council_asyncA
Start a council run in the background and return a job_id immediately, so a long deconfliction/dialectic run (or a slow local model) does not block. Same inputs as ask_council (mode, context, files, etc.). Poll get_council_result with the job_id to fetch the answer when ready. Jobs are in-memory and do not survive a server reload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Response mode override for this call only. | |
| files | No | Optional local file paths to read and attach as labelled context. | |
| images | No | Optional local image paths — same vision-routing behavior as ask_council. | |
| context | No | Optional background text prepended to the question for every member. | |
| git_ref | No | Auto-attach a local git diff as context — same behavior as ask_council. | |
| verbose | No | Include per-round / raw member detail. | |
| git_repo | No | Repo directory to run git_ref in. Defaults to the working directory. | |
| question | Yes | The question or prompt to send to all council members. | |
| full_repo_access | No | WARNING: grants repo-wide read access to claude-cli/codex-cli members — same behavior as ask_council. | |
| reasoning_effort | No | Reasoning depth for every member and the judge, for this call only — same per-backend clamping behavior as ask_council. | |
| max_deconflict_rounds | No | Max deconfliction rounds override for this call only. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which only provide readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral details: the run happens in the background, a job_id is returned immediately, and jobs are in-memory and do not survive a server reload. It also directs the user to the polling tool. This goes beyond the minimal annotation signal and gives useful operational context.
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 description is only three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the behavior, the second covers inputs and result retrieval, and the third notes the in-memory limitation. No redundancy or filler.
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?
For an async background tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: starting a job, returning a job_id immediately, polling for results, and the job's in-memory persistence limitation. It could specify the job_id response shape, but the polling instruction makes the flow clear enough for an agent.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with per-parameter descriptions, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds that inputs are the same as ask_council, which is helpful for transfer but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a council run in the background and return a job_id immediately.' It also distinguishes itself from the synchronous sibling ask_council by emphasizing the non-blocking nature for long deconfliction/dialectic runs or slow local models.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (when a run might block) and instructs the user to poll get_council_result with the job_id. It references ask_council for shared inputs but does not explicitly state a 'when not to use' scenario or name an alternative for synchronous needs, which would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
configure_councilA
Update the council configuration: select which models form the council, choose a judge model, set the response mode (individual / categorized / deconflicted / pooled / dialectic), and set the maximum deconfliction rounds. Each field supplied is persisted and survives restarts/reloads, same as setup_council's tier choices; a field left unset is untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| models | No | Council member model IDs. Format: "provider:model" or "provider/serverId:model". Examples: "ollama:llama3", "openai:gpt-4o", "vllm/server1:meta-llama/Llama-3-8B". Max 100. | |
| judge_model | No | Judge model ID. Same format. Omit, or pass "auto", for auto-select (largest council member). Any other unparseable value is rejected, not silently treated as auto. | |
| auto_council | No | Default true. When true and no models are set, auto-populate the council from all available Ollama chat models (local + :cloud). | |
| response_mode | No | individual: raw responses. categorized: agreement/complementary/conflicting. deconflicted: iterative loop with deconfliction score. pooled: Delphi-style neutral reconsideration (no attribution or ranking shown to members). dialectic: thesis/antithesis/synthesis — defend, build pros/cons, re-select. | |
| reasoning_effort | No | Default reasoning depth for every member and the judge, persisted across reloads. A level a backend does not support is clamped to its nearest supported one, so one setting works across a mixed council. Pass "auto" to clear it back to each model's own default depth (distinct from "none", which actively asks for no reasoning). ask_council's own reasoning_effort overrides this for a single call. | |
| max_deconflict_rounds | No | Max deconfliction rounds (1–10, default 3). |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation aspect is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: changes persist across restarts/reloads and fields not supplied are left untouched, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a config update tool this is sufficient.
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 description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action ('Update the council configuration'). The second sentence efficiently conveys persistence and partial-update semantics. No redundant or filler content.
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?
The description covers the essential contextual points: what the tool does, persistence behavior, and partial updates. Given the tool's moderate complexity and thorough schema descriptions, it is complete enough. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and this is a config update where return format is less critical.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with rich descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description only lists parameter names without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, relying on the schema to carry the detail.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the council configuration' and enumerates the specific aspects it controls (models, judge model, response mode, max deconfliction rounds). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on updates and referencing setup_council's persistence behavior, making its role unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage for updating an existing council configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus setup_council or set_council_timeouts. The reference to setup_council's tier choices provides a comparison but no direct 'when to use / when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
council_statusARead-only
Report the detected environment and current setup: local Ollama models, whether Ollama cloud is reachable on this plan, whether Claude and Codex are logged in, whether Grok CLI is installed but fail-closed, the current council members, resolved subscription tiers, per-provider concurrency, and a quota warning. Use this as the welcome/status readout — it works in every client and install method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: it reports detection results, mentions that Grok CLI is 'fail-closed', and notes universal compatibility across clients and install methods. This is valuable and non-redundant context, justifying a 4.
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 description is two sentences, with the main verb and purpose in the first phrase. Every following item is a concrete detail that adds value, and no information is redundant or wasted. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a status readout tool.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the full scope of what the tool reports and explicitly states its universal compatibility. It does not need to explain return values or parameters, and it does not omit any obvious aspect that an agent would need to decide to invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description therefore has no parameter burden to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain or document parameters, making this score appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('detected environment and current setup'), then enumerates concrete items it covers (Ollama models, cloud reachability, login states, Grok CLI, council members, tiers, concurrency, quota). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_models or get_council_config, which are more targeted.
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?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this as the welcome/status readout — it works in every client and install method.' This tells when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific checks. Since the context is clear and the instruction is direct, it earns a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_council_configARead-only
Return the current council configuration: member models, judge model, response mode, and max deconfliction rounds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns with this by using 'Return'. It adds value by disclosing the specific configuration fields returned, which is helpful for the agent without contradicting the annotation.
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 description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and lists the key configuration attributes with no filler or redundancy.
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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the purpose and return content. It is complete for a simple read-only getter tool.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it meaningfully describes the output structure, which is useful given there is no output schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'current council configuration' and enumerates the exact fields (member models, judge model, response mode, max deconfliction rounds). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like configure_council or list_models, which have different purposes.
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?
The description clearly implies usage as a read-only getter for the current configuration state, and the sibling tool names reinforce the distinction from mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_council_resultARead-only
Fetch a background council run started with ask_council_async. Pass job_id to get its status (running | done | error) and, when done, the full result. Omit job_id (or set list=true) to list recent jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | List recent jobs (metadata only) instead of fetching one. | |
| job_id | No | Job id from ask_council_async. Omit to list recent jobs. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it explains the status values (running/done/error) and that the full result is returned when done. It also clarifies that list=true returns metadata only, which goes beyond the basic read-only annotation.
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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each clause adds actionable information without waste. It is concise yet complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
With no output schema, the description provides essential behavioral details about statuses and listing. It could optionally mention error handling specifics, but for a low-complexity tool with two parameters, this is sufficient.
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?
Although the schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, the description clarifies the relationship between them: job_id for fetching vs. omitting or setting list=true for listing. This adds practical semantics about how the parameters interact.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a background council run started with ask_council_async, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the async context and the ability to list recent jobs.
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?
It explicitly describes when to pass job_id versus when to omit it or set list=true, giving clear usage conditions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like ask_council for sync, but the context is evident from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_modelsARead-only
List all AI models available across every configured provider (Ollama, OpenAI, Anthropic, X.AI Grok (API key), vLLM, TRT-LLM, SGLang, plus subscription-CLI providers: Claude, ChatGPT/Codex, Grok). Use the returned model IDs when calling configure_council.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter_provider | No | Optional provider filter: ollama | openai | anthropic | xai | vllm | trtllm | sglang | claude-cli | codex-cli | grok-cli |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds useful context about aggregating all providers and the intended use with configure_council, but does not go beyond that to describe return format or any behavioral quirks.
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 description is two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing a practical directive. The provider enumeration is verbose but informative and earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, the scope of providers, and how to use the results. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return value usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the filter_provider parameter is fully documented. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it correctly implies the returned model IDs are for passing to configure_council.
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 clearly states the tool lists all AI models across every configured provider, enumerating specific providers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_council or ask_council, which serve different functions.
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?
The description explicitly ties usage to configure_council by saying 'Use the returned model IDs when calling configure_council.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_council_timeoutsA
Set the per-completion wall-clock timeouts (ms) for council calls, persisted across reloads and overriding the REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS / REPO_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS env defaults. run_timeout_ms applies to text-only ask_council calls; repo_timeout_ms applies when full_repo_access is set (repo-reading completions run longer). Omit either to leave it unchanged. Raise these when a member answer is cut mid-generation (the result then carries a timeoutNotice). Returns the now-effective values. A reload is NOT required — takes effect on the next ask_council.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_timeout_ms | No | Per-completion timeout (ms) for text-only calls (no full_repo_access). Default 300000 (5 min). | |
| repo_timeout_ms | No | Per-completion timeout (ms) for calls with full_repo_access. Default 600000 (10 min). |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation, the description discloses persistence across reloads, overriding env defaults, that no reload is required, that it takes effect on the next ask_council, and that it returns the now-effective values. This fully informs the agent of side effects and state changes.
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 description is compact yet information-dense, with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently covers parameter distinctions, usage guidance, and return value without wasting words.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return value, effect timing, parameter conditions, and troubleshooting context. Given the moderate complexity (two optional params), this is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions and defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by mapping each parameter to its triggering condition (text-only vs full_repo_access) and explaining that omitting a parameter leaves it unchanged, which is valuable beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the per-completion wall-clock timeouts (ms) for council calls.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like configure_council by explicitly scoping to timeouts and mentioning persistence and env override behavior.
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?
The description directly states when to raise timeouts ('Raise these when a member answer is cut mid-generation') and clarifies when each parameter applies (run_timeout_ms for text-only calls, repo_timeout_ms when full_repo_access is set). It also notes optional omission semantics for leaving values unchanged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
setup_councilA
Set subscription tiers, then re-detect and auto-populate the council with everything usable. Tiers gate cloud availability and per-provider concurrency: chatgpt (free|plus|pro5x|pro20x), claude (free|pro|max5x|max20x), grok (free|supergrok|premiumplus|heavy), ollama (free|pro|max). Choices persist across reloads. Note: registering a NEW subscription provider or changing concurrency takes full effect after a reload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grok | No | Grok (X.AI subscription CLI) tier. | |
| claude | No | Claude subscription tier. | |
| ollama | No | Ollama subscription tier. | |
| chatgpt | No | ChatGPT subscription tier. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Choices persist across reloads' and 'registering a NEW subscription provider or changing concurrency takes full effect after a reload.' This discloses persistence and side-effect timing beyond what the annotation conveys.
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 description is concise and front-loaded: a clear action sentence, a brief contextual explanation, and an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, side effects, and persistence. It doesn't describe return values, but that may be covered by siblings like 'get_council_config'. The reload note addresses a critical operational detail, making it sufficiently complete for a setup tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described and enum values provided. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that 'Tiers gate cloud availability and per-provider concurrency,' which is not in the schema. It repeats enum lists but ties them to the higher-level purpose.
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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'Set subscription tiers, then re-detect and auto-populate the council.' It also specifies the exact tiers for each provider, giving strong scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'configure_council', which could be confused for similar functionality.
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?
The context implies this is for initial setup ('Set subscription tiers, then re-detect and auto-populate'), and the note about persistence and reload provides situational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'configure_council', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
8 tool updates
v0.2.79- Changed
ask_council9 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional background text prepended to the question for every member.", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / filesAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional local file paths to read and attach as labelled context (default caps: 512 KB/file, 1.5 MB total, 32 files). Text only — use \"images\" for pictures.", + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" +} - added
Input schema / properties / full_repo_accessAdded value: +{ + "description": "WARNING: grants claude-cli/codex-cli repo exploration for a repo-wide review — ENFORCED DIFFERENTLY per provider. claude-cli: Read/Grep/Glob CONFINED to the repo root (real enforced boundary). codex-cli: cwd points at the repo, but its read-only sandbox does NOT confine reads to it — can read anywhere the OS user can (pre-existing behavior, not added by this flag; writes stay blocked everywhere). Defaults false; confirm with the user before setting true for an interactive call (an unattended review step you already control, e.g. end-of-workflow, may set it autonomously). Other members are unaffected. Repo root: git_repo, else cwd.", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Input schema / properties / git_refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Auto-attach a local `git diff` as context for a repo review, instead of hand-listing every changed file via \"files\". One of \"uncommitted\" (staged+unstaged vs HEAD), \"staged\", \"unstaged\", or a git revision/range (e.g. \"main..HEAD\"). Errors clearly on a bad ref, no changes, or a diff too large to attach (> 512 KB).", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / git_repoAdded value: +{ + "description": "Repo directory to run git_ref in. Defaults to the working directory.", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / imagesAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional local image paths (png/jpg/jpeg/gif/webp). Auto-detected vision-capable council members are queried with the image(s); members without vision support are automatically skipped for this call (see visionRouting in the result). Caps: 8 MB/image, 24 MB total, 6 images.", + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" +} - changed
Input schema / properties / mode / enumPrevious value: -[ - "individual", - "categorized", - "deconflicted" -]New value: +[ + "individual", + "categorized", + "deconflicted", + "pooled", + "dialectic" +] - added
Input schema / properties / reasoning_effortAdded value: +{ + "description": "How hard every member AND the judge think, for this call only — overrides the configured default. Higher levels give deeper answers at real cost in time and subscription quota, multiplied across members x rounds. A level the backend does not support is clamped to its nearest supported one (\"max\" runs as \"high\" on Ollama, \"none\" as \"low\" on claude-cli), so one setting works across a mixed council and no member is dropped for asking. Omit to use the configured default.", + "enum": [ + "none", + "minimal", + "low", + "medium", + "high", + "xhigh", + "max" + ], + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{ + "description": "deconflicted → include the initial categorization and per-round detail; pooled/dialectic → include the initial (round-0/thesis) raw member responses.", + "type": "boolean" +}
- Added
ask_council_async - Changed
configure_council6 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / judge_model / descriptionPrevious value: -"Judge model ID. Same format. Omit for auto (largest council member)."New value: +"Judge model ID. Same format. Omit, or pass \"auto\", for auto-select (largest council member). Any other unparseable value is rejected, not silently treated as auto." - changed
Input schema / properties / models / descriptionPrevious value: -"Council member model IDs. Format: \"provider:model\" or \"provider/serverId:model\". Examples: \"ollama:llama3\", \"openai:gpt-4o\", \"vllm/server1:meta-llama/Llama-3-8B\""New value: +"Council member model IDs. Format: \"provider:model\" or \"provider/serverId:model\". Examples: \"ollama:llama3\", \"openai:gpt-4o\", \"vllm/server1:meta-llama/Llama-3-8B\". Max 100." - added
Input schema / properties / models / maxItemsAdded value: +100 - added
Input schema / properties / reasoning_effortAdded value: +{ + "description": "Default reasoning depth for every member and the judge, persisted across reloads. A level a backend does not support is clamped to its nearest supported one, so one setting works across a mixed council. Pass \"auto\" to clear it back to each model's own default depth (distinct from \"none\", which actively asks for no reasoning). ask_council's own reasoning_effort overrides this for a single call.", + "enum": [ + "none", + "minimal", + "low", + "medium", + "high", + "xhigh", + "max", + "auto" + ], + "type": "string" +} - changed
Input schema / properties / response_mode / descriptionPrevious value: -"individual: raw responses. categorized: agreement/complementary/conflicting. deconflicted: iterative loop with deconfliction score."New value: +"individual: raw responses. categorized: agreement/complementary/conflicting. deconflicted: iterative loop with deconfliction score. pooled: Delphi-style neutral reconsideration (no attribution or ranking shown to members). dialectic: thesis/antithesis/synthesis — defend, build pros/cons, re-select." - changed
Input schema / properties / response_mode / enumPrevious value: -[ - "individual", - "categorized", - "deconflicted" -]New value: +[ + "individual", + "categorized", + "deconflicted", + "pooled", + "dialectic" +]
- Added
council_status - Added
get_council_result - Changed
list_models1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / filter_provider / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional provider filter: ollama | openai | anthropic | groq | vllm | trtllm | sglang"New value: +"Optional provider filter: ollama | openai | anthropic | xai | vllm | trtllm | sglang | claude-cli | codex-cli | grok-cli"
- Added
set_council_timeouts - Added
setup_council
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
ask_council - First observed
configure_council - First observed
get_council_config - First observed
list_models
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
Each tool targets a distinct operation: model discovery, configuration updates, synchronous query, async query, result retrieval, config retrieval, environment status, initial setup, and timeout management. The only potential overlap between setup_council and configure_council is clearly differentiated by their descriptions (tiers vs. council composition).
Tools follow a consistent snake_case convention with mostly verb_noun patterns (list_models, ask_council, get_council_config). Minor deviations like council_status (noun_noun) and setup_council (compound verb) are still predictable and do not hinder usability.
At 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a model council management domain. Each tool earns its place, covering discovery, setup, configuration, querying, and maintenance without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: listing models, setting up with tiers, fine-tuning configuration, synchronous and asynchronous ask, result retrieval, config/status readouts, and timeout adjustment. No critical gaps or dead ends are apparent.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Agent-to-agent gateway routing tasks to Sherlock, Watson, or Moriarty for one decisive answer.
Fan out deep research across multiple AI providers, synthesize into one unified report.
AI routing, memory, guardrails, and governance. Routes across Claude, GPT, Gemini.
AI model routing on your own vendor keys: pick the best model per prompt, or route and run it.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceOrchestrates multiple AI models (Gemini, OpenAI, Claude, local models) within a single conversation context, enabling collaborative workflows like multi-model code reviews, consensus building, and CLI-to-CLI bridging for specialized tasks.-
- FlicenseAqualityNot gradedmaintenanceRoutes AI tasks to appropriate local LLM models (quick, coder, MoE, thinking) with automatic model selection, multi-backend support (Ollama, llama.cpp, Gemini), and parallel processing capabilities.91-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables querying multiple AI models in parallel (Claude, Gemini, O3) and synthesizing their responses using anonymous analysis to reduce bias, providing a comprehensive answer.145 npm193MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceFans out queries to multiple independent free LLMs from different providers and returns their answers side by side, enabling sanity-checking of decisions or getting multiple perspectives during coding sessions.GPL 3.0