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

io.github.pmaxx2023/handoff-kit

by pmaxx2023

validate_handoff

Scores a handoff's completeness, flags unverified claims, checks any existing receipt, and issues a fresh receipt so agents can verify work before passing tasks.

Instructions

Score a handoff's completeness, flag unverified claims, check any existing receipt, and issue a fresh receipt.

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": {
      "handoff": "<handoff>"
    },
    "name": "validate_handoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handoffYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a multi-step process including checking any existing receipt and issuing a fresh receipt, which implies a write side effect, but it omits permissions, whether flagging mutates the handoff, scoring criteria, and what the tool returns.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core validation actions. It is appropriately sized and has no redundant filler, though the four-clause structure is slightly dense.

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?

For a validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the scoring scale, what constitutes an unverified claim, the receipt format, or what happens on failure. The nested handoff parameter is also left entirely undocumented.

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 sole required parameter is a nested handoff object with 0% schema description coverage. The description never explains the object's expected fields, shape, or nested structure, so it adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter name already present in the schema.

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 states specific actions on a handoff: scoring completeness, flagging unverified claims, checking receipts, and issuing a fresh receipt. This makes it clearly a validation operation, distinguishable from create_handoff and merge_handoff by the verb 'validate', though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_handoff or merge_handoff, nor any mention of prerequisites or workflow context. The only implied usage is post-creation validation, but that must be inferred.

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