lnkz-mcp

Redeem conversation handoff

redeem_handoff

Retrieve a portable handoff packet using an unexpired LNKZ token, including the conversation transcript and extracted decisions and open questions.

Instructions

Loads the portable packet behind an unexpired LNKZ handoff token, including the transcript and the extracted decisions and open questions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "redeem_handoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose side effects such as token invalidation or state changes. Since readOnlyHint is false and idempotentHint is false, the tool may modify state, but this is not mentioned.

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, two sentences, and directly states the tool's purpose without redundant information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description mentions what is loaded but lacks details about output format, return value, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the token must be created first). Given the sibling tools, some context is missing for effective usage.

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 single parameter 'token' is not explained in the description. The schema provides constraints (min/max length) but no semantic meaning, so the agent has no context on what the token represents or how it is used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (loads), the object (portable packet), and the condition (unexpired LNKZ handoff token), and specifies the contents (transcript, decisions, questions). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_handoff or list_handoffs.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like redeeming a token after creation or how it differs from continue_handoff or revoke_handoff.

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