Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.pmaxx2023/handoff-kit

io.github.pmaxx2023/handoff-kit

by pmaxx2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

merge_handoff

Combine two task handoffs into one sealed record linking both as previous steps, preserving a verifiable chain of work.

Instructions

Merge two handoffs into one sealed record linking both as previous.

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": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>"
    },
    "name": "merge_handoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYes
bYes
next_stepNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Sealed' hints at immutability and 'linking both as previous' implies a chain, but it never says whether the source handoffs are consumed or invalidated, whether the merge is reversible, or what validation applies. That is thin for an irreversible-sounding mutation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, zero filler. Brevity is efficient, though it edges into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so everything behavioral must come from the description, and it omits return shape, failure modes, and the meaning of next_step. For a three-parameter mutation with nested objects, this leaves real gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the two required parameters are untyped nested objects. The description implies a and b are the handoffs being merged, adding a little meaning, but 'next_step' is completely unexplained and no format or identifier expectations for a/b are given.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Merge') and resource ('handoffs') and states the outcome: a sealed record linking both as previous. That is distinguishable from create_handoff and validate_handoff by verb alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 guidance on when to merge versus create or validate, no preconditions (must the handoffs be unsealed? validated first?), and no note on whether merging is one-way. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools