AI Design Blueprint Doctrine

Request Agency Handoff

handoffs.agency

Authenticated — submit an agency engagement enquiry on behalf of the caller for a founder-led discovery call. Persists an AgencyHandoff row routed to the agency inbox; the user is contacted by the team for a scoped proposal. Engagement scopes: workflow sprint (rapid agentic workflow implementation), proof-of-concept (validate a specific agent design in a bounded timeframe), pilot support (co-design and validate a production-ready pilot), advisory (ongoing architectural guidance across a product team). WHEN TO CALL: the user has identified a paid hands-on expert engagement need beyond self-service learning, and explicitly asks to talk to the team or book a discovery call. ALWAYS confirm with the user before firing — this creates a sales-visible record. WHEN NOT TO CALL: for free training / partnerships discussion (use handoffs.partnership); for support / billing / access (use handoffs.operator); proactively or as a sales push. BEHAVIOR: write-only, single insert, side-effecting. Auth: Bearer (Firebase ID token, any plan). UK/EU residency. Response confirms the ticket id + scope so the user can reference it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Role or title of the person submitting the agency inquiry.
`locale`	No	Response locale for the acknowledgment.	en
`reason`	Yes	Description of the engagement need: workflow sprint, proof-of-concept, pilot support, or advisory.
`company`	No	Company or team name submitting the agency inquiry.
`website`	No	Website or relevant URL for the team or project.
`agent_name`	No	Name of the agent or client triggering the handoff.	mcp-client
`support_type`	No	Type of support needed.
`trace_summary`	No	Optional agent trace summary for operator context.
`agent_platform`	No	Platform or runtime the agent is running on.
`workflow_stage`	No	Current workflow stage.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate write and side-effects, and the description confirms by saying 'write-only, single insert, side-effecting'. It adds details on auth, residency, and response. No contradictions.

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 lengthy but well-organized with clear sections (Authenticated, WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, BEHAVIOR). It could be slightly shorter, but all information is necessary for correct usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (sales handoff, multiple scopes, auth, residency), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter context, and expected response. No gaps identified.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context by explaining the engagement scopes (workflow sprint, proof-of-concept, etc.) and the UK/EU residency constraint, going beyond schema details.

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 submits an agency engagement enquiry for a founder-led discovery call, listing specific engagement scopes and distinguishing from sibling tools like handoffs.partnership and handoffs.operator.

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?

Explicitly states when to call (user identifies paid expert need) and when not to call (free training, support, proactive push). Also instructs to always confirm with user before firing.

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

All AI Design Blueprint Doctrine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct purpose. For example, architect.validate vs architect.validate_consensus differ in single-shot vs consensus; handoffs.agency, handoffs.operator, and handoffs.partnership are separated by engagement type. No significant overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow a consistent dot-notation grouping (architect.*, clusters.*, examples.*, guides.*, handoffs.*, me.*, principles.*, signals.*, team.*) with predictable verbs (validate, list, get, search, add, etc.). Minor deviation: some underscore within names (e.g., me.add_evidence) but overall pattern holds.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the higher side but justified given the broad domain spanning validation, certification, learning, handoffs, and feedback. Each tool has a clear role, and the count reflects the platform's comprehensive scope without feeling bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow (validate → consensus → certify), discovery (principles, clusters, examples, guides), personal progress (learning path, coaching, evidence), handoffs (support, partnership, agency), feedback, and team summaries. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?