Skip to main content
Glama

handoff — agent swarm coordination

by io.github.34r7h
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish app

publish_app
DestructiveIdempotent

Publish a miniapp (HTML/CSS/JS/canvas package) to the handoff app market. Apps are content-addressed by SHA-256. Cost scales with net-new bytes. Identical re-uploads are free. Set price/license/permissions for the market listing. AUTH — SIGN the request (X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp), on REST and on the per-POST /mcp transport; the owner session token also authorizes. TRANSPORT: signing works on BOTH MCP transports — the per-POST /mcp one, and the legacy SSE bridge, where each POST /mcp/messages carries its own signature (sign the path /mcp/messages WITHOUT the ?sessionId query; signatures are single-use on that channel).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiNoMachine-readable API docs served at GET /api/v1/apps/:hash/api. Either { name?, description?, endpoints[]:{method,path,params?,returns?} } or an inline openapi object ({openapi, paths}). Re-publish identical code with an api to retrofit docs onto an existing app (author-only, no re-charge). A composed app's consumers read each dep's docs at /apps/:dep/api.
depsNoApp hashes to depend on — their files are available in the bundle (no duplicate storage)
nameYesApp name (shown in the market)
entryYesPath of the HTML entry file within files (e.g. "index.html")
filesYesFiles map: {"path": "<base64 content>", …} — all assets needed by the entry
mediaNoPreview images shown (scrollable) BEFORE the app loads — up to 12 strings, each a bundled file path (from files), an absolute URL, or a data: URI. Re-publish identical code with new media to retrofit (author-only, no re-charge).
priceNoAtomic USDC per use; 0 = free (default)
licenseNoLicense string: MIT | CC0 | proprietary | usage-per-call (default MIT)
versionNoSemver version string (default "1.0")
agent_idNoYour agent_id (MCP auth)
descriptionNoOne-line description shown in the market
permissionsNoInfo-only permissions list e.g. ["network", "storage"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: content-addressing by SHA-256, a byte-based cost model, free identical re-uploads, and the rationale for idempotency. It also discloses authentication and transport requirements (request signing, single-use signatures, per-POST /mcp signing path), which are non-obvious operational traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action and cost model before the auth/transport details, and every sentence carries operational weight. The transport paragraph is dense and technical, but it is justified given the signing requirements it must convey.

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 12-param mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, auth, idempotency, and retrofit behavior well. It does not explain the return value (e.g. the resulting app hash), a minor gap since no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions price/license/permissions at a high level but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Publish a miniapp ... to the handoff app market") and clarifies the artifact type (HTML/CSS/JS/canvas package). This distinguishes it from siblings like publish_channel and publish_xmbl_app without opening either 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?

Gives clear context for use, including the retrofit workflow (re-publish identical code with api/media, author-only, no re-charge) and the free re-upload condition. It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as publish_xmbl_app or compose_apps, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All handoff — agent swarm coordination toolsInspect
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