Skip to main content
Glama

kit-memory-demo

by io.github.PeterAtPondo

handoff

handoff

Write a concise handoff for the next agent/surface at session end, topic change, substantial completed work, or a long-session restart point.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoExtra comma-separated tags.
titleYesShort handoff title. e.g. 'shipped the gate photo, surfaces audit next'.
contentYesWhat was done, the current state, blockers, and the next useful action. Write it for whoever picks up next, including yourself.
projectNoProject scope, if applicable. Omit for cross-project.
surfaceNoThe client/surface writing this, e.g. cursor, vscode-copilot, claude-code. Defaults to this server's detected surface; remote callers should pass their own.
session_idNoSession id to attach this handoff to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"What was done, current state, blockers, and next useful action."New value: +"What was done, the current state, blockers, and the next useful action. Write it for whoever picks up next, including yourself."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Project scope, if applicable. Omit for cross-project."
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id / description
      Added value: +"Session id to attach this handoff to."
    • changedInput schema / properties / surface / description
      Previous value: -"The client/surface writing this, e.g. cursor, vscode-copilot, claude-code."New value: +"The client/surface writing this, e.g. cursor, vscode-copilot, claude-code. Defaults to this server's detected surface; remote callers should pass their own."
    • changedInput schema / properties / tags / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated extra tags."New value: +"Extra comma-separated tags."
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Short handoff title."New value: +"Short handoff title. e.g. 'shipped the gate photo, surfaces audit next'."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "title",
-  "content",
-  "surface"
-]New value: +[
+  "title",
+  "content"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description must carry the full burden. The description only states that the tool writes a handoff, but does not disclose whether this is a persistent action, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The agent is left guessing about the tool's impact on state.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage conditions. There is no wasted text; every clause adds value. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action ('Write a concise handoff') followed by the when-to-use list.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description adequately explains when to use but does not describe what happens after writing (e.g., persistence, visibility, return value). The schema covers parameter details, but the agent lacks context on the tool's lifecycle and post-invocation behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the schema already explains 'title' with an example, 'content' with structure). The description's value is in usage context, not parameter elaboration.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Write a concise handoff for the next agent/surface'. It lists specific triggering scenarios (session end, topic change, etc.), making the verb and resource distinct. Among sibling tools like 'note' or 'commit', this purpose is unique and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'at session end, topic change, substantial completed work, or a long-session restart point'. It does not directly contrast with alternatives, but the listed scenarios are specific enough to guide appropriate use. A score of 5 would require mentioning when not to use or naming a specific alternative.

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

All kit-memory-demo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes like listing areas, capturing drafts, committing memories, and searching. However, the 'note' and 'handoff' tools overlap significantly because 'note' can be used with kind=handoff for the same scenarios that 'handoff' is designed for, potentially confusing an agent on which to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are all single-word, lowercase, and descriptive. Most are verbs (capture, commit, focus, etc.), but 'areas' and 'presence' are nouns, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall, the pattern is simple and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools covering listing, capturing, committing, searching, retrieving, and setting context, the count is well-scoped for a memory/knowledge management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose and fits within the domain.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface lacks update and delete operations for memories, which are essential for a complete lifecycle. There is no way to modify or remove committed memories, and no tool to list all memories (only semantic search). This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures.

Resources