Skip to main content
Glama

provider_handoff_read

Read a stored provider handoff receipt by ID and return the redacted rendered prompt with redaction labels.

Instructions

Read the redacted rendered prompt for a stored provider handoff receipt.

    Looks up a previously written provider handoff receipt by id, validates the id shape, reads the receipt JSON from the
    workspace .nogra receipts directory, and returns the redacted rendered prompt plus any redaction labels.

    When to use:
    - Inspect the exact redacted prompt that was stored for a previous dry-run provider handoff.
    - Recover prompt text by handoff id without re-rendering or creating a new receipt.

    When NOT to use:
    - Do not use this before creating a provider handoff receipt; missing ids return a missing status.
    - Do not use this for unredacted secrets or raw provider prompts; the stored field is redacted.

    Examples:
    >>> provider_handoff_read("provider-handoff-20260504120000-abc123ef")
    {"status": "ok", "handoffId": "provider-handoff-20260504120000-abc123ef", "renderedPromptRedacted": "...", "redactions": []}
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
consult_idNoDeprecated alias for handoff_id. Kept only so older beta prompts fail softly during migration.
handoff_idNoProvider handoff id returned by provider_handoff, normally shaped like provider-handoff-YYYYMMDDHHMMSS-xxxxxxxx.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: looks up by id, validates id shape, reads from workspace directory, returns redacted prompt and redaction labels. It also mentions that missing ids return a missing status. This covers read-only nature, failure modes, and expected outputs comprehensively.

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: a single sentence for the main action, a bulleted list for usage, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. 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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: lookup process, return fields (status, handoffId, renderedPromptRedacted, redactions), and error case. No gaps remain for this straightforward lookup 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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the deprecation of consult_id, the expected shape for handoff_id, and an example usage. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 reads a redacted rendered prompt for a stored provider handoff receipt. It specifies the verb 'read', the resource 'stored provider handoff receipt', and the outputs (redacted prompt, redaction labels). It distinguishes from sibling tools like provider_handoff (write) by focusing on inspection of existing receipts.

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 explicitly lists when to use (inspect redacted prompt, recover by id) and when NOT to use (before creating receipt, for unredacted secrets). While it does not name alternative tools directly, the context and 'when not to use' provide clear guidance. Missing explicit sibling names but still strong.

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