lnkz-mcp

List handoffs

list_handoffs

Read-only

List issued handoffs for a conversation, showing expiry, remaining uses, audience, and revocation state without exposing tokens.

Instructions

Shows issued handoffs with their expiry, remaining uses, audience, and revocation state. Tokens are never returned.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_handoffs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conversationId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds a concrete behavioral detail: 'Tokens are never returned.' This clarifies an important security aspect not evident from the annotation alone. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations.

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 brief and direct, using a single sentence to convey the core functionality and a second for an important caveat. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the description accurately captures what the tool does, it does not explain how it fits into the broader handoff workflow or differentiate it from related tools. Given the existence of multiple handoff-related siblings, some contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The only parameter, conversationId, has no description. The schema provides its type (uuid) and optionality, but the description adds no explanation of its role or effect, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely undefined.

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 action ('Shows') and its target ('issued handoffs'), and enumerates the specific attributes returned (expiry, remaining uses, audience, revocation state). This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like redeem_handoff, create_handoff, continue_handoff, or revoke_handoff. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would indicate its appropriate usage.

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