Skip to main content
Glama
jabbawocky

ProposalCraft

by jabbawocky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

project_handover_email

Write a professional project handover email introducing the incoming developer to the client. Choose a warm tone to set the client at ease, or a clean tone for a factual exit.

Instructions

Write the email handing a project over to another developer or contractor. For when you're stepping back from a project and transferring it to someone else — either because you've been asked to, the client is moving in-house, or you're bringing in a specialist for a particular phase. Two routes: warm (default — introduce the incoming person positively, set the client at ease, frame as an upgrade or natural evolution), clean (factual hand-off with no extra framing — for situations where the relationship is already strained or you simply want a professional exit with no editorialising). Required: client_name, handover_to (name of the incoming person or team). Optional: project_name, handover_reason (brief reason — e.g. 'you've taken the project in-house', 'bringing in a specialist for the next phase'), next_steps (what the client should expect — e.g. 'Alex will reach out this week to schedule a call'), route ('warm' | 'clean' — default warm), your_name. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient first name
handover_toYesName of the incoming developer or team taking over the project
project_nameNoOptional: name of the project being handed over
handover_reasonNoOptional: brief reason for the handover — e.g. 'you've taken the project in-house', 'bringing in a specialist for the next phase', 'my availability has changed'.
next_stepsNoOptional: what the client should expect next — e.g. 'Alex will reach out this week to schedule a call', 'I'll send through the full codebase and documentation by Friday'.
routeNowarm (default) — positive framing, introduce the incoming person, set the client at ease; clean — factual exit with no extra editorialising.
your_nameNoOptional: your name for the sign-off

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changedv1.4.120
    • removedInput schema / properties / access_instructions
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional: any login credentials, access links, or transfer instructions the client needs (e.g. 'I've transferred ownership of the Figma file to your email', 'admin login details are in the attached doc')",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / client_name / description
      Previous value: -"The client's first name"New value: +"Client first name"
    • removedInput schema / properties / deliverables
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "What you're handing over — list the files, assets, or items (e.g. 'final logo files (SVG, PNG, PDF), brand guidelines PDF, and font licences', 'the completed website, admin login, and documentation')",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / handover_reason
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: brief reason for the handover — e.g. 'you've taken the project in-house', 'bringing in a specialist for the next phase', 'my availability has changed'.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / handover_to
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name of the incoming developer or team taking over the project",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / next_steps
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: what the client should expect next — e.g. 'Alex will reach out this week to schedule a call', 'I'll send through the full codebase and documentation by Friday'.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / next_steps_for_client
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional: what the client needs to do after receiving the files (e.g. 'let me know if anything needs adjusting once you've had a chance to review', 'your developer can now start implementation using the Figma file')",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_name / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: the project name (e.g. 'the brand identity project', 'your new website')"New value: +"Optional: name of the project being handed over"
    • addedInput schema / properties / route
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "warm (default) — positive framing, introduce the incoming person, set the client at ease; clean — factual exit with no extra editorialising.",
+  "enum": [
+    "warm",
+    "clean"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / support_period
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional: any included post-handover support window (e.g. '7 days of minor amends', '2 weeks of questions via email')",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "client_name",
-  "deliverables"
-]New value: +[
+  "client_name",
+  "handover_to"
+]
  2. First observedv1.4.72

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses two routes with different tones, states it doesn't count against draft limit, and lists required/optional parameters. It does not specify if the email is auto-sent or just drafted, but the intent is clear.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage context, then route options, then parameters. It is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded and each sentence adds information. Minor redundancy in route explanation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: required and optional params, route options, draft limit benefit. It is sufficient for an email drafting tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the difference between warm and clean routes, providing examples for handover_reason and next_steps, and clarifying optional fields beyond the schema.

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 it writes an email for handing over a project to another developer/contractor. It distinguishes two routes (warm and clean) and explains when each applies, differentiating it from sibling email tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (e.g., stepping back, client moving in-house, bringing in specialist) and describes the two routes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct alternatives among siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools