Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@brightbeamai/chap-coordinator-mcp

@brightbeamai/chap-coordinator-mcp

Official
by BrightbeamAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Decline handoff

chap.handoff.decline

Refuse a proposed handoff so tasks stay with the proposer, record why, and prevent later acceptance or rejection of that proposal.

Instructions

Decline a proposed handoff. The tasks stay with the proposer and nothing is reassigned, which is the difference from chap.handoff.accept. Declining resolves the proposal for good: a later accept or decline on the same handoff answers -32051, and trying again means a fresh proposal. The reason is recorded so the proposer can route the work elsewhere.

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "handoff_id": "<handoff_id>"
    },
    "name": "chap.handoff.decline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromYesParticipant URI, e.g. 'human:alice@example.org' or 'agent:bot@local'.
reasonNoWhy the handover is refused. Recorded so the proposer can route it elsewhere.
workspaceYesWorkspace identifier, e.g. 'wsp_techcorp_support'.
handoff_idYesIdentifier returned by chap.handoff.propose. A handoff already accepted or declined is refused with -32051.
suggested_targetNoWho should take it instead, if the decliner knows.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.13

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: nothing is reassigned on decline, the proposal is resolved permanently, repeat calls fail with error -32051, and the reason is persisted for the proposer to reroute. It stops short of naming required permissions or who is allowed to decline.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by sibling contrast, terminality, and reason semantics in a logical order. Slightly redundant with schema text on the reason, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect on tasks, the alternative tool, and the error behavior on retry. The only gap is authorization context—who may decline—which an agent might want before invoking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including reason and suggested_target are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the reason ('recorded so the proposer can route the work elsewhere') largely restates the schema text rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Decline a proposed handoff') and immediately contrasts the outcome with chap.handoff.accept ('The tasks stay with the proposer and nothing is reassigned'), so an agent can distinguish the two siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes between the two options by naming the alternative it is not, and goes further to describe the terminal condition: a later accept or decline returns -32051, and retrying requires a fresh proposal. It gives the agent both the selection rule and the failure mode.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools