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). UK/EU residency. 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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the tool is write-only, single-insert, side-effecting (creates a ticket), requires Bearer token auth, has UK/EU residency constraints, and returns a confirmation with ticket id and audience. This adds significant context not available from annotations alone.

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 fairly long but well-structured with labeled sections (WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, BEHAVIOR) that make it scannable. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, behavioral effects, auth, geography, and expected response. With 100% schema description coverage and an output schema available, no critical information is missing for a human-review handoff tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters individually described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline. No contradiction or hidden parameter behavior is introduced.

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 creates a partnerships handoff record for specific conversation types (design-partner, ecosystem, training, advisory) and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by pointing to alternative tools for other use cases. The verb 'creates' and resource 'partnerships handoff record' provide precise purpose.

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 provides explicit WHEN TO CALL and WHEN NOT TO CALL sections, naming concrete alternatives (handoffs.operator for general support, handoffs.agency for paid engagements) and warning against proactive/sales use. It also instructs to always confirm with the user before firing, giving clear operational guidance.

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

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose within its domain: the validators are differentiated by lens (architect/design/spec), content tools are split by entity (principles/clusters/guides/examples/assets) with list/get/search variants, and even the me.* and handoffs.* tools have non-overlapping functions. The only near-overlap (architect.validate vs architect.validate_consensus) is explicitly disambiguated by the consensus variant's description.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use a domain prefix (architect., principles., me., etc.) and snake_case throughout. While most are action-oriented (validate, list, get, search, add, await, report, summarize), some me.* and handoffs.* names are noun phrases (me.learning_path, handoffs.agency) that don't signal the action as clearly, creating minor deviation from a pure verb_noun or action pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the set is heavy but justified by the server's broad multi-domain scope (doctrine, validation, learning, support, and team analytics). Each tool has a distinct role, but the number exceeds the typical well-scoped range, and some content types (e.g., examples) could have been consolidated without losing function.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its apparent domains thoroughly: doctrine content has list/get/search for most entity types, validation covers architecture/design/spec with consensus and certification, and user learning/support have appropriate tools. Minor gaps exist—e.g., examples have no list-all endpoint, and session management is web-only—but none are blocking for core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?