Retrieve a complete cross-machine handoff by its full UUID, including body and context, so AI agents can resume work with all prior details.
Get one handoff by its full UUID, including its complete body and context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handoff_id | Yes | Full handoff UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the full body and context are returned, which is useful payload context but does not describe error behavior for an unknown UUID or whether the response is paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it also front-loads the key constraint (full UUID) and the payload. Nothing is padded or redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gaps are routing to siblings and failure behavior on an invalid or missing UUID, which are minor for this level of complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as 'Full handoff UUID'. The description's 'by its full UUID' restates the same requirement without adding format, sourcing, or error-handling detail, so this sits at the schema-covered baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (one handoff) plus the lookup key (full UUID) and the payload returned (complete body and context). It is clear on its own, but never names the sibling it is distinct from (list_handoffs, search_bus), so an agent gets no explicit routing signal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by its full UUID' hints you need a known identifier rather than a search, which distinguishes it loosely from list_handoffs and search_bus. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.