VerifiMind PEAS - RefleXion Trinity

coordination_handoff_create

Create a structured MACP v2.5 handoff record.

TEMPORARILY DISABLED — this tool is contained pending a security repair (incident VM-IR-2026-07-28-COORD-01) and always returns a denial.

Handoff bodies written through this tool were stored in a shared namespace that any unauthenticated caller could read. Nothing is stored or returned while containment is in force. Coordination state belongs in your own repository until private, owner-scoped storage ships.

All arguments are accepted for schema stability and are ignored; no supplied value is stored, logged, or echoed back.

Returns: A COORDINATION_TEMPORARILY_DISABLED error with an incident reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pending`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`blockers`	Yes
`artifacts`	Yes
`completed`	Yes
`decisions`	Yes
`next_agent`	No
`pioneer_key`	No
`session_type`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the security incident, that the tool always returns a denial, that all arguments are ignored, and that nothing is stored or returned. This is exemplary transparency about the tool's operational 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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then the status, reason, guidance, and result in clear paragraphs. Every sentence adds essential information, with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, but the current behavior is fully described: it always returns a specific error. The description explains the security incident, the containment actions, and the expected return type. Nothing relevant is missing for the agent to correctly avoid wasting time on this tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates completely by stating 'All arguments are accepted for schema stability and are ignored; no supplied value is stored, logged, or echoed back.' This tells the agent that parameter values are irrelevant, which is essential given the tool is disabled.

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 intended purpose: 'Create a structured MACP v2.5 handoff record.' It immediately discloses the tool is temporarily disabled and always returns a denial, making the current behavior unmistakable. This distinguishes it from the sibling read tool.

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 explicitly explains when not to use the tool: it is disabled, and 'Coordination state belongs in your own repository until private, owner-scoped storage ships.' This provides clear context and a practical directive, though it does not name a specific alternative tool. It fully conveys that using it now is pointless.

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

All VerifiMind PEAS - RefleXion Trinity tools Inspect

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 clear, distinct purposes: the three consult_agent_* tools are differentiated by agent specialty (CS, X, Z), and the prompt template tools each serve a unique operation. Minor overlap exists between export_prompt_template and get_prompt_template, and between register_custom_template and import_template_from_url, but descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (export_, get_, import_, list_, register_, run_, consult_, coordination_handoff_create/read). A minor deviation is coordination_team_status, which is noun_noun, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools, the set is well-scoped for a server that combines three-agent consultation, an orchestration command, a coordination subsystem, and prompt template management. Each tool earns its place, though three coordination tools are currently disabled, which slightly reduces their practical value.

Completeness4/5

The core validation workflow is complete: individual agent consultations plus run_full_trinity cover the full X→Z→CS sequence. The prompt template subsystem lacks update and delete operations, which is a minor gap, but the main purpose of the server is well served. The coordination tools are present but disabled, limiting that aspect of the surface.

coordination_handoff_create

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources