Odile Labs

Claim a handoff

claim_request

Take over a request another assistant opened, using the single-use handoff code the customer issued from their customer link. Use it only when the customer gave you a code; to start a new job use open_request. The code is used up by a successful claim and expires after 15 minutes. Your access is the scope the customer chose: read, read_cancel or book. Returns request_id and your grant; a bad, used or expired code is refused. Call get_request next. Requires direct:tasks.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "claim_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The handoff code the customer gave you, exactly as issued.
`request_id`	Yes	The request_id returned by open_request or shared by the assistant that opened it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / code / description

Added value: +"The handoff code the customer gave you, exactly as issued."

addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description

Added value: +"The request_id returned by open_request or shared by the assistant that opened it."

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond that, disclosing that the code is single-use, expires after 15 minutes, is consumed by a successful claim, and is refused if bad/used/expired. It also states the scope model (read, read_cancel, book) and the required auth scope (direct:tasks).

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (precondition, alternative, code lifetime, grant scope, error behavior, next call, auth scope). No restatement of the name or title.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers outcome ('Returns request_id and your grant'), failure modes, code lifetime, authorization scope and the follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks: the code comes from the customer's customer link and request_id comes from open_request or the opening assistant. That is real added meaning, though no format or length guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ('Take over a request another assistant opened') and immediately scopes it to the handoff-code case, which cleanly separates it from open_request in the sibling list. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition ('only when the customer gave you a code'), names the alternative for the other case ('to start a new job use open_request'), and directs follow-up ('Call get_request next'). Explicit when, when-not and next-step guidance.

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

All Odile Labs 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?