Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Handoff record check

wever_handoff-record-check

Read-only

Agent Handoffs: submit a system’s task handoff records (each with its id, the task, who sent it, who received it, when, where the task stood when it moved, the constraints it travels under such as a deadline, budget or limit, and when the record was written) and optionally the task moves seen in other logs (a tracker, a queue or message logs). The signed report counts every handoff that keeps the essentials and names every record missing the task, its current state or who sent it (the core a handoff cannot be reconstructed without), every record missing the constraints, every record written more than an hour after the handoff, and every move seen elsewhere with no handoff record behind it, with the fix for each. This reads the records of handoffs a system made: one job’s state assembled into a resume pack is wever_job-handoff-pack, a signed sender-to-recipient pack is wever_agent-to-agent-handoff-pack, an operator handover package is wever_handover-check and the format every handoff uses is wever_context-transfer-check. Verdict handoffs_are_rumors, record_gaps, records_unverified or handoffs_recorded. POST /api/handoff-record-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-handoffs-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-handoffs/.

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": {
      "handoffs": "<handoffs>"
    },
    "name": "wever_handoff-record-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`handoffs`	Yes	Each recorded task handoff.
`observed`	No	Task moves seen in other logs, such as a tracker, a queue or message logs, to find handoffs with no record.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), a free tier (10 signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), an auth requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route), and the return contract (Ed25519 signed receipt with four named verdicts). It also enumerates what is deliberately not done — no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, config change or external write — which reinforces the read-only annotation with concrete scope.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the ordering (what it does → what the report contains → alternatives → verdicts → endpoint → safety → price → auth → return) is logical. However, it is a dense, parenthesis-heavy block with redundant lists (the no-network/no-write enumeration partly restates the read-only annotation) and four verdict names offered without explanation, which inflates length without adding usable detail.

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?

For a complex checking tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: input shape, what each reported finding means, the verdict vocabulary, the signed receipt, the endpoint and the payment/auth model. The remaining gap is that the four verdicts are listed but not mapped to the conditions that produce them, which an agent would need to interpret results.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that task, current state and sender are 'the core a handoff cannot be reconstructed without,' and that recorded_at is compared against the handoff time (records written more than an hour after the handoff are flagged). That clarifies the relationship between the 'at' and 'recorded_at' fields in a way the schema alone does not. It does not explain the label or observed-object matching semantics in comparable depth.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('submit a system's task handoff records') and immediately specifies the scope: the records being checked plus the optional observed moves. It explicitly names and characterizes the neighboring tools (wever_job-handoff-pack assembles one job's state, wever_agent-to-agent-handoff-pack is a signed sender-to-recipient pack, wever_handover-check is an operator handover, wever_context-transfer-check defines the format), so an agent can tell what this tool is not without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The definition states the use case clearly ('This reads the records of handoffs a system made') and routes each alternative sibling to its own scenario, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. What it lacks is an explicit exclusion or precondition, e.g. when not to submit observed moves, or when a pack tool is preferable to a check.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails 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?