Geond Agent Protocol

Close handoff summary

close_handoff_summary

Mark a handoff as consumed or closed after the receiving agent acts or a human reviews it. Provide handoff ID and optionally final status to update the record.

Instructions

Purpose: Mark a handoff as consumed or no longer active. When to use: call after the receiving agent has acted on the handoff or a human has reviewed it. Inputs: handoff_id and final status. Side effects: updates handoff status. Output: count of closed records. Failure modes: returns zero when the handoff id does not match an active row.

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": {
      "handoff_id": "<handoff_id>"
    },
    "name": "close_handoff_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No	Final status to set, usually closed.	closed
`handoff_id`	Yes	Handoff UUID to close.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses side effects ('updates handoff status'), output ('count of closed records'), and failure modes ('returns zero when the handoff id does not match an active row'). Good coverage given no annotations provided.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear headings (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence is informative and concise, no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and failure modes comprehensively. It is complete for the complexity level.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds value by reiterating the purpose of the two parameters and highlighting the default status. The failure mode note provides additional context.

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?

Description clearly states 'Mark a handoff as consumed or no longer active', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_handoff_summary and list_handoff_summaries.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'call after the receiving agent has acted on the handoff or a human has reviewed it'. No explicit alternatives mentioned, but the context from sibling tools provides distinction.

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