Msty Admin MCP

Bloom check handoff

bloom_check_handoff

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a model's Bloom history to decide whether it should hand off a task category, returning JSON handoff advice without calling Bloom.

Instructions

Decide from Bloom history whether a model should hand off a task category. Does not call Bloom. Use bloom_evaluate_model to add history. Read-only. Returns JSON handoff advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	Yes	Local model name whose Bloom history to read.
`task_category`	Yes	Task category such as research, coding or advisory.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv6.2.1Nov 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / model / description
```
Added value: +"Local model name whose Bloom history to read."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / task_category / description
```
Added value: +"Task category such as research, coding or advisory."
```
First observedv5.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context: it does not call Bloom itself and returns JSON handoff advice. That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not detail the source of Bloom history.

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?

The description is four short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The operational constraint and return format are stated directly.

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?

It is mostly complete for a simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations. The main remaining gap is routing guidance against similar handoff-related siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add further semantics about model naming or task category beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: decide whether a model should hand off a task category using Bloom history. It clearly contrasts with bloom_evaluate_model for adding history, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as bloom_get_history or identify_handoff_triggers.

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?

It gives a clear usage context (deciding handoff from Bloom history) and names bloom_evaluate_model as the alternative for adding history. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or explain how it differs from adjacent handoff-related tools.

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

Deploy Server