Skip to main content
Glama
antonbabenko

Deliberation

by antonbabenko
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

ask-grok

Read-only

Request a one-shot Grok second opinion on any prompt. Choose an expert persona for focused advisory feedback.

Instructions

Single-provider second opinion via grok (advisory, single-shot). Pass expert to apply one of the expert personas. Calls the external grok provider (needs XAI_API_KEY; rate limits apply) and returns a text-wrapped JSON envelope { result }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory the provider runs in (used to resolve relative file refs). Defaults to the server process directory.
filesNoOptional attachments for providers that read files (Grok/OpenRouter; inlined as context for Codex/Gemini). Each item is EXACTLY ONE of path/dir/file_id/file_url.
expertNoOptional persona: architect, plan-reviewer, scope-analyst, code-reviewer, security-analyst, researcher, or debugger. On a named expert tool the tool's own persona wins and this is ignored.
promptYesThe question or task for the provider(s)/expert.
reasoningEffortNoReasoning depth where the provider supports it (Grok, OpenRouter): low, medium, high, or none. CLI providers (Codex, Gemini) ignore it.
developerInstructionsNoOptional system/developer instructions injected verbatim; overrides the built-in persona for `expert`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv3.8.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / cwd / description
      Added value: +"Working directory the provider runs in (used to resolve relative file refs). Defaults to the server process directory."
    • addedInput schema / properties / developerInstructions / description
      Added value: +"Optional system/developer instructions injected verbatim; overrides the built-in persona for `expert`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expert / description
      Added value: +"Optional persona: architect, plan-reviewer, scope-analyst, code-reviewer, security-analyst, researcher, or debugger. On a named expert tool the tool's own persona wins and this is ignored."
    • addedInput schema / properties / files / description
      Added value: +"Optional attachments for providers that read files (Grok/OpenRouter; inlined as context for Codex/Gemini). Each item is EXACTLY ONE of path/dir/file_id/file_url."
    • addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / dir / description
      Added value: +"Directory to attach; expanded recursively by providers that support it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / file_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of a file already uploaded to the provider (e.g. Grok Files API)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / file_url / description
      Added value: +"Public URL for the provider to fetch."
    • addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / mode / description
      Added value: +"Delivery: auto (size-based), inline (embed as text), or upload (provider Files API)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / path / description
      Added value: +"Path to a single file to attach (resolved against cwd)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / prompt / description
      Added value: +"The question or task for the provider(s)/expert."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reasoningEffort / description
      Added value: +"Reasoning depth where the provider supports it (Grok, OpenRouter): low, medium, high, or none. CLI providers (Codex, Gemini) ignore it."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it labels the tool as 'advisory, single-shot' and notes external provider call, API key requirement, rate limits, and return format (text-wrapped JSON envelope). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter details, and external dependencies. It lacks explicit error handling but is otherwise complete for a well-annotated tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning: it explains that 'expert' applies a persona and is ignored on named expert tools, 'developerInstructions' overrides persona, 'reasoningEffort' applies only to certain providers, and 'files' attachment behavior per provider.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is a 'Single-provider second opinion via grok (advisory, single-shot),' identifying the provider and the one-time advisory nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'single-provider' and 'grok,' and mentions 'expert' personas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for a 'second opinion' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ask-gpt' or 'ask-gemini.' It mentions external dependencies (XAI_API_KEY, rate limits) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool comparisons.

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/antonbabenko/deliberation'

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