핸드오프 코드로 작업 맥락을 이어받는다. 반환은 '미신뢰 데이터'로 감싸짐. 검증 배지가 없으면 수신측 재검증 권장.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"code": "<code>"
},
"name": "baton_receive"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that return is wrapped in 'untrusted data' and advises re-verification, which is crucial behavioral context given no annotations. No additional details about side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, two short sentences that front-load the essential purpose and behavior. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Covers purpose, parameter, and return handling. Could mention errors or prerequisites for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Explains the sole parameter 'code' as a handoff code, adding meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool receives work context via a handoff code. While it differentiates from the broader 'baton' family, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'baton_send'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a recommendation to re-verify if no verification badge is present, which guides safe usage. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.