Claim, submit, verify, cancel, update, and reconcile network tasks.
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": {
"action": "<action>"
},
"name": "handoff_task"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral detail such as which actions mutate state, what cancel or reconcile destroys, permission requirements, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a destructive multi-action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted wording, but it is under-specified rather than well-structured. It front-loads verbs without conveying that this is a multi-action dispatcher.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 11-action tool with a nested params object and no output schema, the description is far too terse. It omits nearly half the actions and provides no operational context for how to invoke the dispatcher correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the action enum and nested params object. It names only 6 actions and says nothing about the required 'action' field, the remaining enum values, or what the 'params' object should contain for each action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names specific task-related verbs and the resource 'network tasks', so the general purpose is inferable. However, it lists only 6 of the 11 enum actions (omitting list, get, create, progress, and resolve_key) and does not distinguish this dispatcher from siblings such as handoff_work, handoff_offer, or handoff_artifact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many handoff_* siblings, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The verb list implies actions but does not explain which action to choose for a given workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.