Skip to main content
Glama

provider_handoff

Generate a redacted handoff receipt for review without calling a live provider, returning a handoff ID and local file guidance.

Instructions

Create a dry-run provider handoff receipt.

    Renders the configured provider handoff template, redacts secret-shaped text, stores the
    hosted receipt, and returns the handoff id plus localWrites guidance for the caller-owned
    `.nogra/` receipt copy.
    This public V1 tool does not call a live provider.

    When to use:
    - Prepare a redacted provider handoff before handing work to another model or reviewer.
    - Validate how a prompt, context, and mode will render without making an external model call.

    When NOT to use:
    - Do not use this when you need an actual provider response; providerCall.attempted is always false.
    - Do not use this for run tracking or pinboard activity; use event/run tools for that.

    Examples:
    >>> provider_handoff(provider="codex", prompt="Review this brief", context="Scope: docs only", intent="review")
    {"status": "dry_run", "handoffId": "provider-handoff-...", "provider": "codex", "intent": "review", ...}
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoDeprecated alias for intent. Kept only so older beta prompts fail softly during migration.
modelNoDeprecated alias for provider. Kept only so older beta prompts fail softly during migration.
intentNoProvider intent label such as consult, review, delegate or gate.consult
promptNoQuestion or task text to render into the provider handoff prompt.
contextNoOptional surrounding context rendered into the provider handoff prompt.
surfaceNoSuggested surface mode: pass-through, manager-summary or conditional-loud.pass-through
providerNoProvider label to place in the handoff receipt, such as codex or gemini.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it is a dry-run (no live provider call), it redacts secret-shaped text, it stores a receipt, and returns a handoff id plus guidance. While it does not mention rate limits or authentication, it adequately sets expectations for a read-like write operation.

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 concise (around 150 words) and well-structured with a clear first sentence, bullet-point sections for when to use/not use, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and important information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage constraints, and key behaviors. The example illustrates typical invocation. The output schema (not shown) likely covers return values, so the description need not elaborate.

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 already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds limited extra meaning. It provides an example showing typical usage of provider, prompt, context, and intent, which helps contextualize the parameters, but it does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what the schema states.

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's purpose: 'Create a dry-run provider handoff receipt.' It then details the steps (renders template, redacts secrets, stores receipt, returns id and guidance), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by noting it does not call a live provider, unlike related tools like dispatch_handoff or provider_handoff_read.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear context for appropriate usage. It advises against using this tool for actual provider calls (suggesting alternative behavior) and for run tracking (pointing to event/run tools). However, it does not name specific sibling tools to use instead, which would make the guidance even stronger.

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