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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false and no positive safety hints, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that an allow routes the order intent with an envelope and card URL, while a deny returns filtered licensed destinations, and adds the guardrail 'never a vial'. It does not fully detail side effects like audit/logging or auth requirements, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loads the main verb. The second sentence is dense and stylized, but contains the necessary branch behavior and guardrail; there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-mode behavior is described, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, with five optional parameters and no param-level descriptions, an agent still cannot confidently know how to populate intent_id, decision_id, or limit, and the description does not address selection against sibling directory tools.

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, but it only loosely maps to practice_scope and counterparty_card_url ('card URL'). The parameters decision_id, intent_id, and limit are effectively unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their role and format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Hand off over A2A') and clarifies the two distinct branches: routing an order intent to a licensed counterparty agent on allow/require_rx, and returning provider-directory destinations on deny. It distinguishes itself from dispensing tools with 'a referral, never a vial', though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool by tying behavior to decision types: allow/require_rx versus deny. However, it never explicitly states alternatives among sibling tools or conditions under which this tool should not be used, leaving selection guidance implicit rather than direct.

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.