F
license-
qualityB
maintenanceEnables AI coding agents to communicate and coordinate through a durable, vendor-neutral message bus with support for threads, tasks, presence, and webhooks.
283
Agent Handoff
Server Details
Pass messages between AI agents with cleaning, metadata enrichment, and metered billing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- jordan23wagner-ops/agent-handoff
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is read-only for retrieving usage stats, the other is a metered operation for performing a handoff. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tools use snake_case, but one is a verb (handoff) while the other is verb_noun (get_usage_stats). This minor inconsistency is offset by clear and predictable naming within a small set.
Tool Count5/5
With only two tools, the server is lean and focused on its single purpose—agent handoff. Every tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or deficiency given the narrow domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the server's purpose: a read operation to inspect handoff history and a write operation to execute handoffs. No obvious gaps exist for this utility.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_usage_statsAInspect
Return this account's total handoff count and the most recent handoffs. Read-only and not billed.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses two behavioral traits: read-only (no mutations) and not billed (no cost). This is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool. No additional behavioral claims are needed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extra words. Highly concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description specifies what is returned (count and recent handoffs). Without output schema, it could be more specific about format or count limits, but the zero-parameter nature makes it fairly complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter info because none exist. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns total handoff count and most recent handoffs. The verb 'Return' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'handoff' by being a stats retrieval.
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?
Description notes the tool is read-only and not billed, implying safe usage without side effects. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'handoff', the stateless nature is clear. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned, but the simplicity of the tool makes usage self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
handoffAInspect
Hand a message off to another agent. Cleans and normalizes the payload, stamps it with handoff metadata (id, timestamp, estimated tokens, target agent), and records the handoff. Use this when passing work or context from one agent to the next in a multi-agent pipeline. This is a metered, billable operation.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The payload to hand off. Accepts a plain string or a JSON object. Max 256 KB. | |
| next_agent | Yes | Name/identifier of the agent receiving this handoff. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully bears burden; discloses mutation (cleans, normalizes, records), metadata stamping, and billing. No contradictions.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with action, each adds value: operation, metadata, usage context, billing. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and moderate complexity, description covers operation, metadata, and usage well; could mention return or errors but not required.
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 coverage is 100% with both params described; description adds max size for message but little beyond schema, meeting baseline.
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?
Uses specific verb 'hand off' plus resource 'another agent', details actions (cleans, normalizes, stamps metadata), and distinguishes from sibling tool get_usage_stats.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when passing work or context from one agent to the next in a multi-agent pipeline.' and mentions it is metered/billable; no explicit exclusions but sibling is for stats, no overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI models to interact with messages from various messaging platforms (Mobile, Mail, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Slack, Twitter, Telegram, Instagram, Messenger) through a standardized interface.316MIT
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables secure coordination between multiple LLM agents through authenticated messaging, status updates, and conversation management. Features automatic secret redaction, rate limiting, and audit trails for safe multi-agent collaboration in development environments.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables LLM agents to send, receive, and discover contacts on the agentic message bus via native tools.5MIT