Skip to main content
Glama

RelayLink

Where the work was left

notebook_handoffs
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the hand-offs on this RelayLink account: the notebook entries saying where work was left for whichever assistant picks it up next, and the packages the user has sent their own address. Call it when the user says they were working on something in another assistant, or asks to carry on. The packages keep their own ids and are read with get_package, unchanged. Reads only, and reading one does not stop another assistant finding it. This is the user's RelayLink notebook, for material they are keeping: use it when they name RelayLink or their notebook, when they are continuing work already kept here, or when they pick a RelayLink entry. A durable fact ABOUT them — how they like to be worked with, what they are working on — is memory_add's instead, and a project-scoped preference or one with an end date is this notebook's. A bare "add a task" or "save this note" may be meant for another connected app, and a destination they name outright is always the destination. If more than one place is plausible and nothing settles it, ask once, then stay with the answer for the rest of the task.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "notebook_handoffs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many of each to show (default 20, max 50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description still earns credit by disclosing that reading an entry does not mark or hide it from other assistants, and that packages retain their ids and must be fetched with get_package unchanged. It does not describe pagination or ordering beyond the limit parameter, which keeps it off a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening is front-loaded and useful, but the middle of the description sags into repeated disambiguation clauses ('a destination they name outright is always the destination', 'ask once, then stay with the answer') that restate conversational policy rather than tool behavior. It is informative but roughly twice the length needed, with overlapping sentences about the same notebook-vs-memory decision.

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 does the work of explaining that results are hand-off entries and separately-owned packages with their own ids, and it covers safety and read semantics. What an individual entry actually contains is left implicit, and the limit/max is delegated entirely to the schema, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is only one optional parameter (limit) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the default and max, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions the limit itself, instead referring only obliquely to 'how many of each' via the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (hand-offs on this RelayLink account), and clarifies that these are notebook entries plus packages sent to the user's own address. It distinguishes the concept from get_package by noting packages keep their own ids and are read separately. It is a bit sprawling, and the second half of the description drifts into routing policy rather than reinforcing the purpose, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given (user says they were working in another assistant, or asks to carry on), plus explicit exclusions and alternatives: durable facts about the user go to memory_add, project-scoped or time-bounded preferences go here, bare 'add a task' may belong to another connected app, and a named destination always wins. It even resolves ambiguity policy (ask once, then stay consistent). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs among 60+ siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources