A2A Peptides

A2A Handoff

a2a_handoff

Hand off over Agent-to-Agent (A2A). With an allow/require_rx decision: the order intent goes to the licensed counterparty's agent (envelope + card URL). With a deny for a patient, the public or an unauthorized actor: returns real licensed destinations from the provider directory (dispensers, prescribers) filtered by the decision's jurisdiction, state/province and practice scope — a referral, never a vial.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`intent_id`	No
`decision_id`	No
`practice_scope`	No
`counterparty_card_url`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / decision_id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / decision_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedInput schema / properties / decision_id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / intent_id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / intent_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedInput schema / properties / intent_id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 10,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / practice_scope

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

removedInput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "intent_id",
-  "decision_id"
-]

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that allow/require_rx sends the order intent to a licensed counterparty's agent, while deny returns directory-filtered destinations and adds 'never a vial' to clarify it does not dispense medication. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the title.

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?

The description is compact at two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence packs necessary conditional logic, though the stylistic close '— a referral, never a vial' adds emphasis without new information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the two main branches and an output schema exists, so return values are handled. However, it does not explain behavior when parameters are null (which all are by default), nor what limit controls, making it incomplete for full agent autonomy.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions practice_scope and counterparty_card_url, and hints at decision_id and intent_id through the decision scenario, but limit is entirely undocumented. This leaves an agent without enough meaning to correctly set all parameters.

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 clearly specifies a distinct action: 'Hand off over Agent-to-Agent (A2A)' and details two decision-driven outcomes (allow/require_rx vs deny). It names the resource (order intent, licensed destinations) and the filtering criteria, separating it from siblings like create_order_intent or find_licensed_supplier.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the conditional 'With an allow/require_rx decision... With a deny...' but no explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' guidance is given. An agent must infer from context that this tool should be used for handoff decisions, not for other transactions like gating or pricing, which are covered by siblings.

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

All A2A Peptides 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.