agentpeers MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

register_research_handoff

Registers a local Codex caller to receive human-authorized research questions, returning a topic that must be paired in the research chat before delivery; it grants no business-action authority.

Instructions

Register only this exact local Codex caller for human-authorized factual questions from research. Provide the returned topic to the research chat; pairing is required before delivery. Does not grant business-action authority.

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>",
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "register_research_handoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`scope`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`sender`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.10.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful constraints: local caller only, human authorization, research factual questions, pairing prerequisite, and explicitly denies business-action authority. It still omits idempotency, what the returned topic represents, lifecycle behavior, and whether re-registration overwrites prior state.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, and the key scope restriction ('Register only this exact local Codex caller') is front-loaded. Some phrasing is cryptic, but the structure is efficient.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage. The description is not sufficient for an agent to correctly supply required fields such as id, scope, and title, nor does it explain the return value or pairing lifecycle. It is too thin for a four-parameter registration tool.

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. Instead, it gives no meaning for id, scope, title, or sender. The phrase 'returned topic' hints at an output but does not explain how any of the four parameters map to registration.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Register,' and narrows the resource to 'this exact local Codex caller' for 'human-authorized factual questions from research.' It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning a 'returned topic' and required pairing, but the actual outcome of registration remains vague.

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 states preconditions ('only this exact local Codex caller' and 'pairing is required before delivery'), implying a setup step before research delivery. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools such as pair_research_chat, read_research_question, or close_research_handoff, so the agent must infer the sequencing.

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