Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

handoff_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read session handoffs. action: get | list (consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools) Required per action — get: project, topic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo[get] Optional YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for latest.
tagsNo[list] v2 only: AND match — entries must contain ALL given tags. Example: ['auth', 'mobile'].
timeNo[get] Optional HHMM (24h, KST) — same value passed at save time. Required to disambiguate when multiple handoffs share the same project/topic/date.
limitNo[list] Max entries to return (default 50).
sinceNo[list] ISO8601 timestamp — only entries with updated_at >= since are returned.
topicNo[get] Topic slug used at handoff_save time.
actionYeswhich operation to run
statusNo[list] v2 only: filter by frontmatter status (e.g. 'in_progress', 'paused', 'completed', 'blocked'). v1 handoffs without frontmatter are excluded when this filter is set.
projectNo[get] Project slug used at handoff_save time. [list] Optional project filter, e.g. 'logi' to list only logi-* handoffs.
task_typeNo[list] v2 only: filter by frontmatter task_type (e.g. 'feature', 'bugfix', 'refactor', 'research', 'ops').
has_blockersNo[list] v2 only: filter by frontmatter has_blockers (true/false).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'consolidated surface' note indicating compatibility with legacy tool handlers, but does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or other runtime characteristics.

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 two short sentences that front-load the purpose. The second sentence packs action modes, legacy compatibility, and parameter requirements into a single run-on, but still avoids redundancy.

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?

Despite large parameter count and no output schema, the description remains minimal. It does not explain what a successful response contains, differences between get/list return shapes, or default behaviors (like limit=50, which lives in the schema). The schema picks up much of the slack, but the description could better orient the agent.

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?

The schema documents all 11 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds critical conditional logic: that 'project' and 'topic' are required when action=get. This is not encoded in the JSON schema's required array, so it meaningfully augments parameter understanding.

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 ('Read') and resource ('session handoffs'), clearly distinguishing it from the write-tool sibling 'handoff_save'. Mentioning the get/list actions adds operational scope.

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 the tool is for reading handoffs but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. It states required parameters per action but not situational guidance (e.g., prefer this over memory_read for handoff data).

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

All ainote 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources