AI Design Blueprint

Request Partnership Handoff

handoffs.partnership

Authenticated: creates a partnerships handoff record for design-partner, ecosystem, training, or advisory conversations needing human review. Persists a PartnershipHandoff row routed to the partnerships inbox; the user is contacted by the team. WHEN TO CALL: user explicitly wants to engage as a design partner, co-marketing/training partner, or evaluate the Blueprint for their org's training programme. ALWAYS confirm with the user before firing: this creates a human-visible partnerships ticket. WHEN NOT TO CALL: for general support / billing / access issues (use handoffs.operator); for paid-engagement enquiries (use handoffs.agency); proactively or as a sales prompt, only when the user has explicitly asked. BEHAVIOR: write-only, single insert, side-effecting (creates a ticket). Auth: Bearer (any plan). Data at rest in the UK. Response confirms the ticket id + audience so the user can reference it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Role or title of the person submitting the partnership inquiry.
`topic`	No	Partnership topic category.	ecosystem
`locale`	No	Response locale for the handoff acknowledgment.	en
`reason`	Yes	Clear description of the partnership opportunity or inquiry.
`website`	No	Website of the organization for additional context.
`agent_name`	No	Name of the agent or client triggering the handoff.	mcp-client
`organization`	No	Name of the organization or company making the partnership inquiry.
`trace_summary`	No	Optional agent trace summary for operator context.
`agent_platform`	No	Platform or runtime the agent is running on.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "request_partnership_handoffDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "$defs": {
-    "ErrorBody": {
-      "description": "The body of `error_payload(code, message, details)` returns.",
-      "properties": {
-        "code": {
-          "title": "Code",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "details": {
-          "additionalProperties": true,
-          "title": "Details",
-          "type": "object"
-        },
-        "message": {
-          "title": "Message",
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "title": "ErrorBody",
-      "type": "object"
-    }
-  },
-  "properties": {
-    "error": {
-      "$ref": "#/$defs/ErrorBody",
-      "default": null
-    },
-    "guidance": {
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Guidance",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "handoff_id": {
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Handoff Id",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "handoff_type": {
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Handoff Type",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "next_action_url": {
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Next Action Url",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "next_step": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "additionalProperties": true,
-          "type": "object"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Next Step"
-    },
-    "status": {
-      "default": null,
-      "title": "Status",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "title": "HandoffResponse",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Changed1 schema field changedMay 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "ErrorBody": {
+      "description": "The body of `error_payload(code, message, details)` returns.",
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "title": "Code",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "details": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "title": "Details",
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "title": "Message",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "title": "ErrorBody",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/ErrorBody",
+      "default": null
+    },
+    "guidance": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Guidance",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "handoff_id": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Handoff Id",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "handoff_type": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Handoff Type",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_action_url": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Next Action Url",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Next Step"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Status",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "HandoffResponse",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only write, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: write-only, single-insert, side-effecting, creates a human-visible ticket, auth requirements, UK data at rest, and response content. This goes well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 organized into clear labeled sections with all critical information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, covering usage, exclusions, behavior, auth, and response expectations without repetition.

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?

For a 9-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary invocation context: when to call, when not to call, confirmation requirement, side effects, auth, and response contents. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing important 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes every parameter. The description mentions that a PartnershipHandoff row is routed and the user is contacted, but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'creates a partnerships handoff record' for design-partner, ecosystem, training, or advisory conversations. It differentiates from sibling tools by naming the partnerships inbox and the recipient team, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 WHEN TO CALL and WHEN NOT TO CALL sections identify exact triggers, require explicit user confirmation, and name alternatives: handoffs.operator for support/billing/access and handoffs.agency for paid engagements. This leaves no ambiguity about routing.

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 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?