Create, staff, advise, roster, and operate agent teams with member management.
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_team"
}
}| 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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds nothing: it never warns that remove_member, set_roster, or complete are destructive or irreversible, nor mentions permissions, side effects, or what 'complete' does to a team. For a destructive multiplexed tool this is a substantial gap.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, but the structure is poor: the comma-separated verb pile reads as a keyword list rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, and it conveys less than a plain 'Manage agent teams' would.
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?
Given 11 distinct actions, a nested free-form params object, destructive semantics, and no output schema, the description should at minimum describe the action families and their required params. It provides essentially none of that, leaving the tool effectively unusable without trial and error.
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% and 'params' is an untyped free-form object, so the description carries the entire burden — and it fails. The verbs 'staff' and 'roster' loosely hint at add_member/remove_member and set_roster, but opaque actions like 'respond_role', 'advise', and 'complete' receive no explanation of required params or behavior.
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 a resource ('agent teams') and a cluster of verbs ('Create, staff, advise, roster, and operate'), so the general domain is discernible. But the verb list is a comma-spliced grab bag that never states the tool is a multi-action dispatcher, and it gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings like handoff_hierarchy, handoff_gov, or handoff_work.
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 handoff_hierarchy or handoff_work, and no explanation of which situation calls for which of the 11 actions. An agent must guess from enum names alone.
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.