Browse and interact with projects, goals, openings, and recurring campaigns.
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_work"
}
}| 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 readOnlyHint=false, but the description only says 'browse and interact' and never identifies which actions mutate or destroy state. It adds no permission, reversibility, or side-effect context; 'browse' even understates the destructive actions.
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 sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The broad resource list is not structured to help an agent scan actions or distinguish reads from writes.
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 a multi-action tool with nested params, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves the action semantics, required params, and risky operations unexplained.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not map any of the nine action enum values to their behavior or explain the free-form params object. Resource nouns provide only a loose hint and leave most parameter meaning undocumented.
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 broad resources (projects, goals, openings, recurring campaigns), but the verb 'browse and interact' is too vague to tell what the tool actually does. It omits the nine concrete actions in the schema, including create/update/promote, and gives no sibling differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is provided, despite nearby handoff_* tools like handoff_task and handoff_offer. An agent has no basis for choosing handoff_work over those siblings.
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.