Skip to main content
Glama
MajorTal

run402-mcp

by MajorTal
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

initiate_project_transfer

Transfer a project you own or admin to a recipient via wallet, email, or organization. Wallet/email transfers create a pending request that the recipient must accept or claim within 72 hours.

Instructions

Initiate a project transfer (owned-org recipient shape v1.96+). Addressed to a WALLET (to_wallet, completed by accept_project_transfer), an EMAIL (to_email, completed by claim_project_transfer), OR an owned ORG (to_org_id, same-actor move that completes immediately in the first gateway release) — provide exactly one. You must currently own/admin the project; for to_org_id you must be an active owner of both the source and destination orgs. Wallet/email transfers create a pending row with 72h expiry and freeze owner-side mutations until completed, cancelled, or expired. The recipient gets the project under the migrate billing policy. Owner's tier lease is NOT refunded. GitHub repo ownership is NOT transferred. Calls POST /projects/v1/:project_id/transfers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoOptional free-text note shown to the recipient in the preview and notification emails.
to_emailNoRecipient EMAIL. Provide EXACTLY ONE of `to_wallet`, `to_email`, or `to_org_id`. An email recipient completes the transfer via `claim_project_transfer` (they claim it into an org they own).
to_org_idNoDestination ORG id. Provide EXACTLY ONE of `to_wallet`, `to_email`, or `to_org_id`. First gateway release is same-actor only: caller must be an active owner of the source org and destination org. Completes immediately and returns project keys.
to_walletNoRecipient WALLET address (any case — the gateway lowercases). Provide EXACTLY ONE of `to_wallet`, `to_email`, or `to_org_id`. A wallet recipient completes the transfer via `accept_project_transfer`.
project_idYesProject id to transfer. You must currently own or admin it (the gateway verifies against fresh DB state).
billing_policyNoWallet rail only. Phase 1A supports only `migrate` (default). The project moves into the recipient's organization.
kysigned_record_idNoWallet rail only. Optional KySigned record id. Phase 1A stores this verbatim (no verification).
retain_collaborator_roleNoEmail rail only (v1.91): keep a `developer` membership in the recipient's org after the transfer completes. The recipient must accept it at claim time (`accept_retained_collaborator`). Omit for a full severance.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: freeze on owner-side mutations, 72h expiry for wallet/email, no tier refund, no GitHub repo transfer, and immediate completion for org_id. Missing details on final response or error conditions, but covers major side effects.

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?

The description is informative but slightly verbose, repeating 'provide exactly one' multiple times. It is front-loaded with the core action and recipient options. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (8 params, exclusive choice, multiple rails), the description covers usage well but lacks output format details (e.g., what the API returns) and error handling. With no output schema, this information would help completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the exclusive choice requirement, the different completion mechanisms, and context-specific rules (e.g., org_id same-actor move, billing policy only supports migrate). This greatly aids correct parameter usage.

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 the action: 'Initiate a project transfer' with three distinct recipient types (wallet, email, org_id), distinguishing each completion path. It contrasts with sibling tools like accept_project_transfer and claim_project_transfer, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states 'provide exactly one' recipient, lists prerequisites (ownership, active owner for org_id), and explains the pending row behavior and expiry. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for other scenarios, but the guidance is clear for the intended use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MajorTal/run402'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server