agentpeers MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pair_research_chat

Pairs a launcher handoff with the intended research chat using its pairing code, preventing unrelated chats from being approved and existing paired requesters from being replaced.

Instructions

Pair this launcher’s handoff using the code read from the intended research chat. Never approve a code from an unrelated chat or replace a paired requester.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "pairing_code": "<pairing_code>"
    },
    "name": "pair_research_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`sender`	No
`pairing_code`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.10.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses two safety constraints but omits whether pairing is idempotent, what permissions are required, what side effects occur, and how id/sender affect pairing.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action before the safety constraints. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('this launcher’s handoff') but there is no wasted text.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers only a pairing-code safety nuance and leaves too much unexplained for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only indirectly clarifies pairing_code as the code read from the intended research chat; id and sender remain completely undefined.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the action (pair) and the object (research chat handoff) and ties it to a pairing code. However, 'this launcher’s handoff' is vague, and it does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like register_research_handoff or acknowledge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides negative usage guidance—never approve a code from an unrelated chat and never replace a paired requester—which implies when not to use it. It does not state positive conditions for choosing this tool over sibling tools or outline prerequisites.

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