model-council-mcp-codex
This MCP server lets you ask a configurable council of multiple AI models (local, cloud, and subscription CLI) a single question and receive a synthesized answer in one of five decision-theoretic modes.
Ask the council (
ask_council) in five modes:individual– raw side-by-side answers from each member.categorized– judge groups responses into agreement, complementary insights, and conflicts.deconflicted– iterative re‑questioning of members on conflicts; returns a deconfliction score (0–100%) and a final synthesis.pooled– Delphi‑style: a neutral, attribution‑free digest is shown, members reconsider independently, preserving divergence.dialectic– thesis → antithesis → synthesis: members defend positions, a pros/cons dossier is compiled, members then re‑select a ranked top‑3.
Supported providers – mix local engines (Ollama, vLLM, TRT‑LLM, SGLang), cloud APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, X.AI Grok), and subscription CLIs (Claude, ChatGPT, Grok) that reuse your existing logins without exposing API keys.
Background processing (
ask_council_async/get_council_result) – start up to 20 concurrent background council runs and fetch results later.Attach context – include inline text, local files, or images (auto‑detects vision‑capable members, non‑vision members are skipped and reported).
Code / repo review – attach a
git_ref(e.g., “uncommitted”, “staged”, a revision range) to auto‑attach a diff, or enablefull_repo_accessfor read‑only repository exploration by CLI‑based members.Configure the council – choose council members, judge model, default response mode, max deconfliction rounds, reasoning effort (
none→max), and subscription tiers; persistence across sessions.Inspect and manage –
list_modelsshows all available models per provider;get_council_configreads current settings;council_statusreports detected environment, concurrency, quota warnings, and setup hints;set_council_timeoutsadjusts per‑completion timeouts on the fly.Privacy‑focused – runs entirely on your machine, no data leaves it, and uses your own cloud subscriptions instead of raw API keys where possible.
Easy install – available as an npm package and as a self‑contained Codex plugin.
Click on "Install 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-mcp-codexdeconflict the disagreement over database choice"
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-codex
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: Conclave MCP
Install in Codex (recommended)
This repository is a self-contained Codex plugin. The server is bundled into a
single zero-dependency file (bundle/server.cjs), so installation does not run
npm install and local-model use can remain offline.
# 1. Add the GitHub repository as a Codex marketplace
codex plugin marketplace add tsarihan/model-council-mcp-codex
# 2. Install Model Council
codex plugin add model-council@model-council-codexRestart Codex after installation. On first use the plugin detects your
environment and auto-populates the council with usable providers: local Ollama
chat models, eligible Ollama :cloud models, and logged-in Claude and ChatGPT
subscriptions through the local claude and codex CLIs. No API key or
configuration is required to start with providers you already use. Council
edits and setup persist across sessions.
Ask Codex to use
ask_council, or say “ask the model council …”.Invoke
$model-council-statusfor detected models, CLI login state, concurrency, and quota use.Invoke
$setup-model-councilto configure tiers and council membership.Codex will ask you to review plugin-provided MCP servers and hooks before trusting them.
To update later:
codex plugin marketplace upgrade model-council-codex
codex plugin remove model-council@model-council-codex
codex plugin add model-council@model-council-codexThe plugin exposes the same bundled MCP implementation and all nine tools as the upstream Claude Code version:
ask_councilandask_council_asyncsupport all five modes, inline context, files, images, git diffs, full-repository review, verbose results, progress, timeout notices, and background jobs.get_council_result,list_models,get_council_config,configure_council,council_status,setup_council, andset_council_timeoutsretain the same schemas and persisted state.$model-council-statusis the Codex equivalent of/model-council:status.$setup-model-councilis the Codex equivalent of/model-council:setup.The upstream Claude SessionStart hook remains available for Claude Code compatibility. Codex exposes the equivalent status/setup guidance through
$model-council-statusand$setup-model-council.
Codex has no plugin userConfig equivalent. Configure tiers, members, modes, rounds, and
timeouts through the bundled setup/configuration tools; these changes persist
in ~/.config/model-council/state.json. API keys, custom provider endpoints,
CLI paths, and low-level performance settings use the same environment
variables documented below. Set them in the environment that launches Codex,
or use a standalone codex mcp add ... --env KEY=VALUE registration when
per-server values are required.
For local development, register a checkout as the marketplace source:
codex plugin marketplace add /absolute/path/to/model-council-mcp-codex
codex plugin add model-council@model-council-codexTo exercise only the MCP server without installing the plugin:
codex mcp add model-council -- node /absolute/path/to/model-council-mcp-codex/bundle/server.cjsThis Codex port is derived from tsarihan/model-council-mcp and retains its Apache-2.0 license and attribution.
Configurable 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 and its CLI provider is currently disabled because no
safe tool-lockdown value has been verified. The API-keyed X.AI provider remains
available. See the Grok security warning below.
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 safe-mode probe), and is thecodexCLI signed in (codex login status). Grok CLI login is not probed in normal operation because no safe tool-lockdown mode is known; use the X.AI API provider. 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 (npm)
# Quick try
npx model-council-mcp
# Add to Claude Code
claude mcp add model-council-mcp -s user -- npx -y model-council-mcpOr add to ~/.claude.json → mcpServers:
{
"mcpServers": {
"model-council": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "model-council-mcp"],
"env": {
"OLLAMA_ADDRESS": "http://localhost:11434",
"COUNCIL_MODELS": "ollama:llama3,ollama:mistral",
"RESPONSE_MODE": "categorized"
}
}
}
}Configuration (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.When the CLI is logged in and the configured Claude tier permits cloud use, these members are auto-added by zero-config setup. Use
configure_councilorCOUNCIL_MODELSto pin a smaller explicit set.
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). When the CLI is signed in and the configured ChatGPT tier permits cloud use, these members are auto-added by zero-config setup; useconfigure_councilorCOUNCIL_MODELSto pin a smaller explicit set.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.
The provider fails closed even when GROK_CLI=true or a paid GROK_TIER is
selected. GROK_CLI_UNSAFE_ACCEPT_RCE=true bypasses that guard for isolated
security testing only; it must not be used for normal council work because
untrusted peer output can trigger arbitrary commands through a Grok member or
judge.
Behavior & requirements
The
grokCLI must be installed and logged in. SetGROK_CLI_PATHif it isn't onPATH.The experimental subprocess uses
--tools noneand--permission-mode bypassPermissions, but live testing confirmed that this still leaves Grok's built-in tools enabled. The explicit unsafe environment flag—not the--toolsvalue—is the only guard.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.Grok defaults to
freeand is excluded from the auto-populated council.
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. Default caps: 512 KB/file, 1.5 MB total, 32 files, 1 MB 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, grok), then re-detect and auto-populate the council with everything usable. Grok CLI remains fail-closed unless its unsafe testing override is explicitly acknowledged; prefer X.AI API access. 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": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "model-council-mcp"],
"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 persistent application-state file is
~/.config/model-council/state.json(your selected tiers + council members), plus session state owned by the provider CLIs. Subscription CLI calls can also create temporary prompt, output, or image files; they are removed on a best-effort basis, but a crash or cleanup failure can leave a remnant. No conversation content is intentionally persisted by this server.Subprocesses. Detection and subscription inference shell out to the locally-installed
claude,codex, andgrokbinaries. Codex uses a read-only sandbox. Claude uses--safe-mode, an isolated working directory, strict MCP configuration, and disabled tools. Grok CLI members are disabled by default because its tested tool-lockdown values still permit arbitrary commands; the unsafe RCE override is for isolated testing only.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. 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?
Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint annotation, the description richly discloses behavior: deconfliction's iterative loop and 0–100% score, pooled's 'no winner is forced' divergence preservation, dialectic's thesis/antithesis/synthesis flow, vision routing, local `git diff` execution, and provider-specific full_repo_access sandbox limitations. This is far more than annotations provide.
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 long single paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence carries operational weight. Given the tool's genuine complexity (11 parameters, 5 modes, multiple safety caveats), the length is justified, though bulleted structure would improve scannability.
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 covers key result-related context (visionRouting, deconfliction score, structured response) and all major input behaviors and safety warnings. It does not fully specify the overall response envelope, but for this complex tool the contextual coverage is strong and sufficient for selection and invocation.
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 has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains each mode's output semantics, contrasts git_ref with files, details vision capabilities and caps, clarifies reasoning_effort clamping behavior, and warns about full_repo_access provider differences. These are semantics the schema enum/descriptions do not convey.
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 opening sentence is specific and action-oriented: 'Send a question to the model council and get a structured response,' and the mode enumeration clarifies the tool's scope. It differentiates from list/configuration siblings, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related ask_council_async, leaving the synchronous-versus-asynchronous choice implied rather than stated.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Attach images to ask a vision question,' 'For a repo review, pass git_ref instead of hand-listing files,' and 'For a full repo-wide review (not just a diff), full_repo_access.' It also provides a when-not caveat ('confirm with the user before setting true') and clarifies that vision-incapable members are skipped, giving clear context and exclusions.
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?
The description discloses the in-memory nature and lifecycle ('Jobs are in-memory and do not survive a server reload'), which is critical behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations. It also clarifies the return behavior (job_id) and that it's non-blocking.
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?
Three sentences, with the primary action stated upfront. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, input compatibility, and fetch mechanism, plus a caveat. No redundant phrasing.
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 full workflow: start background job, get job_id, poll result, and job lifetime. It references sibling tools for parameter details and result retrieval, which is sufficient given the schema and sibling context. Minor omission of error handling or timeout behavior, but not 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?
The schema already covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds value by stating 'Same inputs as ask_council', which informs the agent that parameter behavior is consistent with a known sibling. No additional semantics are provided.
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 'Start a council run in the background and return a job_id immediately', identifying the specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by referencing ask_council for synchronous behavior and get_council_result for polling.
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 explains when to use it: 'so a long deconfliction/dialectic run (or a slow local model) does not block', providing a clear use case. It also instructs how to retrieve results: 'Poll get_council_result with the job_id'. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions, but the context is clear.
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?
The annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so extensively. It discloses persistence across restarts/reloads, partial-update semantics, validation of judge_model (rejecting unparseable values), default behavior for auto_council, and reasoning_effort clamping across mixed councils. This is far beyond the annotations.
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 primary purpose and then adds behavioral details. Every clause provides necessary context, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately concise for a tool with six parameters.
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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, rich validation rules), the description is quite thorough. It covers the update semantics, persistence, partial updates, and subtle behaviors like judge_model auto and reasoning_effort clamping. It does not explicitly describe return values, but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap; the core invocation context is well covered.
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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that each field is persisted and that unset fields are untouched, which applies to all parameters. It also introduces cross-parameter semantics like auto_council interacting with models and reasoning_effort overriding, which the schema does not capture.
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 editable aspects (models, judge, response mode, deconfliction rounds). It distinguishes itself from siblings like setup_council and get_council_config by using the verb "update" and by mentioning persistence relative to setup_council.
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 clear context for when to use this tool: it is an update operation on existing council configuration. It explicitly states that "a field left unset is untouched," which is valuable partial-update guidance. It does not explicitly rule out setup_council, but the sibling names and the phrase "same as setup_council's tier choices" give a clear sense of the intended use.
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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only nature, and the description adds meaningful context: it reports specific environmental checks (Ollama cloud reachability, login states, Grok CLI fail-closed, quota warnings) and portability across clients/install methods. No contradiction detected.
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 densely packed with specific, useful information. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Report the detected environment and current setup') and then enumerates the exact contents. Every clause earns its place without unnecessary fluff.
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?
Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it lists the major categories (models, cloud reachability, login status, council members, tiers, concurrency, quota). It is sufficiently complete for a 0-parameter read-only status tool, though it does not detail the exact output format.
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, which the input schema fully reflects. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter info, which is 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 names the resource ('detected environment and current setup') with a detailed list of contents. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_models and configure_council by positioning it as the welcome/status readout.
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 says to use it as the 'welcome/status readout' and notes it works in every client and install method. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools imply the distinction.
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 readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific data fields returned but does not disclose any potential edge cases like whether defaults are shown or if an error occurs when no council is configured. This is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and resource. It avoids extraneous words and fully conveys the tool's purpose and return 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, readOnlyHint present), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The list of fields is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter syntax. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies, and the description's enumeration of return fields provides additional context beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool returns the current council configuration and enumerates the exact components (member models, judge model, response mode, max deconfliction rounds). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_models (which lists models) and configure_council (which modifies configuration).
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 purpose is self-evident as a getter, implying use when you need to inspect the current configuration. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like configure_council or set_council_timeouts, so it lacks explicit 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.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by explaining the status values (running | done | error), that full result comes when done, and that listing returns metadata only. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a compact breakdown of the two usage modes. Every word earns its place; 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?
Without an output schema, the description discloses key return aspects (status values, full result when done). It fully explains both invocation modes and remains focused. It could mention error semantics more deeply, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a sibling for status, this is adequately complete.
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 descriptions for both list and job_id. The description adds semantic nuance by clarifying the relationship: omitting job_id is equivalent to setting list=true, and the default behavior (omit both) results in listing recent jobs. This extra integration goes 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('background council run started with ask_council_async'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the async origin and explicitly describing two usage modes (fetch by job_id or list recent jobs), which separates it from ask_council or council_status.
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: use when you have a job_id from ask_council_async, or omit job_id/list to see recent jobs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when to avoid this tool, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: enumerates all providers (API-key and CLI-based) and states the output is model IDs for use with configure_council. No contradiction, but it doesn't mention potential provider errors or pagination behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by an actionable next step. Every word earns its place with no 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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema; the description gives provider scope and integration context. It doesn't explicitly specify the return format, but 'returned model IDs' is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?
The schema fully covers the only parameter (filter_provider) with a list of allowed values. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('List'), names the resource ('AI models'), and specifies scope ('across every configured provider' with an explicit list). It clearly differentiates from sibling configuration/query tools as the discovery operation.
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 when needing to discover available models, explicitly stating to use the returned model IDs when calling configure_council. It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, but the context among siblings is clear enough.
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 readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses persistence across reloads, effect timing ('takes effect on the next ask_council'), the fact that a reload is NOT required, and the return value ('Returns the now-effective values'). It also explains the timeoutNotice signal, providing rich behavioral 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?
Five sentences, each informative and non-redundant. The main action and key scope are front-loaded ('Set the per-completion wall-clock timeouts'), and every sentence adds value without fluff.
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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers persistence, effect timing, when to raise timeouts, and the return behavior. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return value description.
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 descriptive defaults and ranges, but the description adds meaning by linking each parameter to its use case (run_timeout_ms for text-only, repo_timeout_ms for full_repo_access) and clarifying omission semantics. This goes beyond the schema's baseline, though the schema already does heavy lifting.
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 action ('Set') and the resource ('per-completion wall-clock timeouts for council calls'), specifies units, and distinguishes between two timeout types (text-only vs repo-access). It also notes persistence and override of env defaults, differentiating it from sibling config tools.
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 gives a concrete trigger: 'Raise these when a member answer is cut mid-generation', and explains the partial-update behavior ('Omit either to leave it unchanged'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context strongly implies its niche.
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 only set readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: persistence of choices across reloads, reload requirement for new providers/concurrency changes, and the action of re-detecting/auto-populating. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not detail side effects like overwriting existing council contents.
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 three sentences: the first states the core action, the second enumerates tier options per provider (which is helpful), and the third gives a critical reload caveat. No filler, well structured, and front-loaded.
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 it's a setup tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, persistence effect, and reload requirement. It could mention what happens to existing council entries, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to decide 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?
The schema already describes each parameter at 100% coverage with enums. The description adds meaning by stating that 'Tiers gate cloud availability and per-provider concurrency,' which explains the purpose of the tier values beyond simply listing them. It also indicates persistence, enriching the semantics.
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: 'Set subscription tiers, then re-detect and auto-populate the council with everything usable.' It names the resource (council) and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'configure_council' by emphasizing re-detection and auto-population, with concrete provider/tier lists.
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 clear usage context, noting that choices persist across reloads and that registering a new provider or changing concurrency requires a reload. It implies this is the setup tool for tiers, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over 'configure_council' or any exclusions, so it lacks full alternative guidance.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
9 tool updates
v0.2.80- First observed
ask_council - First observed
ask_council_async - First observed
configure_council - First observed
council_status - First observed
get_council_config - First observed
get_council_result - First observed
list_models - First observed
set_council_timeouts - First observed
setup_council
TDQS
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but setup_council and configure_council both modify council configuration, and get_council_config and council_status both report council members. Descriptions clarify the boundaries, so ambiguity is low but not zero.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_models, configure_council, ask_council, get_council_result, set_council_timeouts), but council_status is a noun phrase and deviates. The overall convention is consistent enough to be predictable.
9 tools is well-scoped for a model council management server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the lifecycle: discovery, setup, configuration, synchronous/asynchronous querying, result retrieval, status, and timeout management.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage for a model council: list available models, set up and configure the council, ask questions synchronously or asynchronously, retrieve results, check status, and adjust timeouts. No critical operations are missing.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Multi-LLM council: 25+ frontier models in parallel, consensus scoring, verdict-first code review.
Deliberation + live 5-model council divergence over the Omnarai multi-AI attributed corpus.
Convene a panel of expert AI personas to debate any decision from every side.
21Multi-model AI debates: GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini & 200+ models discuss, then synthesize insight.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to create council hearings where multiple LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) debate topics and synthesize verdicts with trust scores and diverse perspectives.28Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides access to multiple frontier LLM models (GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek) for consulting a "conclave" of AI perspectives, enabling peer-ranked evaluations and synthesized consensus answers for important decisions.81MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables running AI councils across Claude, GPT, and Gemini, synthesizing answers based on your personal taste lens, all locally without an API key.1MIT

MergeLoopofficial
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA host-agnostic model council that routes tasks across multiple AI workers (MCP, CLI, API) and returns one unified answer.13Apache 2.0
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tsarihan/model-council-mcp-codex'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server