Scout

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

scout_handoff

Inject a banner in the live browser to prompt the user for manual actions like CAPTCHAs or SMS codes, returning a handoff ID to poll until completion.

Instructions

Inject a banner in the live browser asking the user to take a manual action. Returns IMMEDIATELY with a handoff_id — does NOT block. Poll scout_handoff_check(handoff_id) every 5-10 seconds until status is 'completed'. Use for: CAPTCHAs, SMS codes, authenticator app prompts, email verification.

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": {
      "instruction": "<instruction>"
    },
    "name": "scout_handoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instruction`	Yes	Plain-language instruction shown to the user in the browser
`timeout`	No	Max wait in ms (default: 300000 = 5 min)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses async return with handoff_id and polling requirement; lacks details on timeout expiration or cancellation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded, no waste.

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?

Covers essential info for agent decision (async, polling, use cases); no output schema, but not needed.

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 covers 100% with good descriptions; description adds no extra meaning beyond 'manual action' context.

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 tool injects a banner for manual action (CAPTCHAs, SMS, etc.), distinguishes from siblings by mentioning polling scout_handoff_check.

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 lists use cases and polling interval; could add when not to use (e.g., automated steps).

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