Skip to main content
Glama

VerifiMind PEAS - RefleXion Trinity

by io.github.creator35lwb-web

coordination_handoff_read

Read the most recent coordination handoff record(s).

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

This read path returned complete handoff bodies from a caller-selected namespace with no authenticated ownership check. It is closed to every caller — with or without a key — while owner-scoped access control is rebuilt. No record body is returned.

All arguments are accepted for schema stability and are ignored.

Returns: A COORDINATION_TEMPORARILY_DISABLED error with an incident reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
agent_idNo
pioneer_keyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well. It discloses the security vulnerability (VM-IR-2026-07-28-COORD-01), the fact that all arguments are ignored, that no record body is returned, and the exact error type returned (COORDINATION_TEMPORARILY_DISABLED).

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by the disabled status, the reason, operational detail, and return behavior. Each section earns its place, and the security incident reference adds necessary context without wordiness.

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 description fully covers what the tool does, its current operational state, parameters, and return behavior. Given the output schema exists and the tool is disabled, the description is complete—it explains everything an agent needs to know, including the fact that no record body will ever be returned.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly states 'All arguments are accepted for schema stability and are ignored.' This is the critical semantic addition—agents know not to bother populating count, agent_id, or pioneer_key because they have no effect.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the most recent coordination handoff record(s).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coordination_handoff_create, which writes, and consult_agent_* tools, which serve a different consulting purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool is TEMPORARILY DISABLED and 'always returns a denial,' making it unambiguous that it should not be used. It also mentions the security incident and that it is closed to every caller, leaving no doubt about usage status.

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 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 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.

Resources