Skip to main content
Glama
jigyasudham

veto

by jigyasudham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

veto_handoff

Save the current AI session and get step-by-step instructions to continue on Gemini or Codex when nearing a rate limit, letting the next platform restore full context.

Instructions

Saves the current session and returns step-by-step instructions to continue on another AI platform (Gemini or Codex). TRIGGER: when the user types veto_handoff or asks to hand off / save-and-switch, call THIS live MCP tool directly — do NOT write a node script or touch ~/.veto/veto.db by hand. Call this when Claude is approaching its rate limit. The receiving platform calls veto_continue to restore full context instantly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesKey context the next platform needs: active decisions, file paths, constraints.
summaryYesWhat was accomplished this session — one or two sentences.
task_stateNoCurrent task state — what is done, what is in progress, what is next.
project_dirNoAbsolute path to the current project directory.
to_platformNoTarget platform. If omitted, Veto picks the platform with the most headroom.
token_countNoApproximate tokens used this session.
from_platformNoPlatform handing off (default: claude).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.8.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / from_platform / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "claude",
-  "gemini",
-  "codex"
-]New value: +[
+  "claude",
+  "gemini",
+  "codex",
+  "antigravity"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / to_platform / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "gemini",
-  "codex",
-  "claude"
-]New value: +[
+  "gemini",
+  "codex",
+  "claude",
+  "antigravity"
+]
  2. First observedv2.7.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature and non-destructiveness are already covered. The description adds valuable context: it implies direct DB manipulation is unnecessary, notes the rate-limit trigger, and clarifies that the receiving platform uses veto_continue. It doesn't detail permissions or exact side effects, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear TRIGGER block and secondary guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 cross-platform handoff complexity, 7 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, when to call it, what it returns (step-by-step instructions), and how the receiving platform continues. Agents have everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 7 parameters (enums, defaults, etc.). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Saves the current session') and resource, and clearly explains the outcome ('returns step-by-step instructions to continue on another AI platform'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling veto_continue by naming it as the counterpart for restoring context.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit trigger conditions are provided: when the user types the tool name, asks to hand off/save-and-switch, or when Claude approaches its rate limit. It also gives a clear prohibition ('do NOT write a node script or touch ~/.veto/veto.db by hand') and points to the alternative (veto_continue).

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