Skip to main content
Glama
tsarihan

model-council-mcp-codex

by tsarihan

ask_council

Send a question to a council of AI models and get a structured answer in five modes (individual, categorized, deconflicted, pooled, dialectic). Supports image questions and git-based repo reviews.

Instructions

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoResponse mode override for this call only.
filesNoOptional 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.
imagesNoOptional 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.
contextNoOptional background text prepended to the question for every member.
git_refNoAuto-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).
verboseNodeconflicted → include the initial categorization and per-round detail; pooled/dialectic → include the initial (round-0/thesis) raw member responses.
git_repoNoRepo directory to run git_ref in. Defaults to the working directory.
questionYesThe question or prompt to send to all council members.
full_repo_accessNoWARNING: 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_effortNoHow 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_roundsNoMax deconfliction rounds override for this call only.
Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters5/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tsarihan/model-council-mcp-codex'

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