Skip to main content
Glama

handoff_contract

Fetch a handoff contract to spawn a subagent for executing an approved brief or verifying evidence.

Instructions

Return an ephemeral Nogra handoff contract.

    Nogra execution roles are not installed as persistent Claude Code project agents. The Manager fetches a
    handoff contract at a dispatch or verification boundary, then spawns Claude Code's built-in general-purpose
    subagent with the returned prompt plus the approved brief, run id, scope and evidence contract.
    Manager must not implement the approved scope inline. If the client cannot spawn the subagent, stop and
    surface the missing primitive instead of offering a fallback.

    When to use:
    - After a brief is approved and a dispatch receipt/run id exists, fetch kind=executor before spawning the run agent.
    - Before independent evidence checks, fetch kind=verifier before spawning a disposable verifier agent.

    When NOT to use:
    - Do not call repeatedly during normal lifecycle logging.
    - Do not persist the returned prompt as a .claude/agents file.
    - Do not use this as execution approval; the user-approved brief and dispatch receipt remain the authority.
    - Do not use this to justify inline Manager execution.

    Examples:
    >>> handoff_contract("executor")
    {"schema": "nogra.handoff.contract.v1", "status": "ready", "kind": "executor", "targetSubagent": {"type": "general-purpose", ...}}
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoEphemeral Nogra handoff kind to fetch. Supported values: executor or verifier.
roleNoDeprecated alias for kind. Kept only so older beta prompts fail softly during migration.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the contract is ephemeral, not to be persisted, and that the Manager must not implement scope inline. It also instructs to stop and surface missing primitive instead of fallback. However, it does not cover rate limits, authentication, or side effects beyond these constraints.

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 with a clear summary, usage sections, and an example. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence serves a purpose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Manager must not implement' appears twice), but overall it is efficiently organized.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, when not to use, behavioral constraints, and provides an example return format. No critical information is missing for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by listing supported values for 'kind' (executor or verifier) and explicitly labeling 'role' as deprecated, which is not in the schema. The example further clarifies usage.

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 the tool returns an ephemeral Nogra handoff contract, specifying the verb 'return' and the resource 'handoff contract'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose by explaining its role at dispatch or verification boundaries, making it stand out from siblings like brief_contract or dispatch_handoff.

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?

The description includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, detailing after brief approval for executor, before evidence checks for verifier, and listing prohibitions such as not calling repeatedly, not persisting the prompt, and not using it as execution approval. This provides excellent guidance on alternatives and context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nograai/nogra-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server