Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

baton

by io.github.vinsenzo83
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

baton_send

방의 다른 세션에게 쪽지를 보낸다(to 없으면 전체). 시크릿 자동 마스킹. 코드 불필요 — member_id로 방을 안다.

Tool call template

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": {
      "member_id": "<member_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "baton_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo특정 별명에게만
textYes
member_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / code
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "code",
-  "member_id",
-  "text"
-]New value: +[
+  "member_id",
+  "text"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions automatic secret masking and that the room is determined from member_id, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences in Korean, front-loaded with key actions and important notes about masking and usage. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple messaging tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the main purpose, optional targeting, and a behavioral trait (secret masking). Missing error handling or full parameter details, but adequate.

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 only 33% (only 'to' has description). The description adds that 'to' is for a specific nickname and that member_id is used to identify the room, but 'text' remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 it sends a note to other sessions in the room, specifies behavior when 'to' is absent (sends to all), and mentions secret masking. It is specific and distinguishes the tool's action.

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 includes a hint that code is not needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with sibling tools like baton_approve or baton_receive.

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

All baton toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources