handoff-mcp

by sutongwuyanzu

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.6
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation (init, save, recall, status, memory append, doctor), but recall and status both read project state, and memory_append has dual read/write behavior. Descriptions help clarify, but a minor overlap exists.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the handoff_ prefix and use snake_case, but the command words vary in type: init/save/recall are verbs, while status and doctor are nouns, and memory_append is a compound. The style is consistent overall with minor deviations.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for a handoff management server, covering setup, save, load, status, memory, and health check without being excessive or too thin.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle of handoff management is covered: init, save, recall, status, and health check. Missing operations like explicit delete or list of prior handoffs are minor and agents can work around them.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 14 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Show' and does not mention side effects (read-only nature), prerequisites (existence of .handoff'), error behavior, or output details. This is a minimal description that leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.
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?
For a simple status tool with one optional parameter, the description conveys the basic output (status, goal, next actions). However, it lacks details about the output format, how 'root' affects behavior, and how this tool relates to or differs from the sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for more context.
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?
The schema has a single 'root' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it. The parameter's name and default value (' . ') imply it is the project root, but no explicit semantics or usage guidance is provided.
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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource ('.handoff/') and content ('status, goal, and next actions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like handoff_save or handoff_doctor.
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 is provided for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies an inspection use case but does not explicitly state when it should be preferred over handoff_recall or handoff_doctor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states what it checks ('health-check', 'scan for secrets') but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it modifies files, what it returns, or any side effects. For a diagnostic tool, this is insufficient transparency.
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 a single, short sentence that effectively communicates the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words; every word contributes to understanding.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about expected output/return value, side effects, or what a 'health-check' entails beyond secret scanning. For a low-complexity tool this is borderline adequate.
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?
There is one parameter, 'root', with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions 'root', so the agent has no guidance on what to pass or what the default behavior is. The description should have explained that 'root' likely sets the base directory for the scan.
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 function: health-check .handoff/ and scan LATEST.md for secrets. This is a specific verb-resource pair ('health-check' and 'scan') that distinguishes it from siblings like handoff_init or handoff_save, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: one would run this to check health/secret leakage of handoff files. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The sibling context shows different functions, but the description itself doesn't say 'use when...'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires permissions, or creates specific structures. 'Memory layout' is vague and lacks behavioral detail.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action immediately.
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?
For a simple init tool with optional params and no output schema, the description is somewhat adequate but omits important details like idempotency, what files/directories are created, and potential side effects. It leaves room for ambiguity.
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?
The description does not mention parameters. Schema covers root with a description and default, but language lacks any description. The description adds no value beyond the schema, and schema coverage is only 50%.
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 'Initialize .handoff/ memory layout' with a specific verb and resource, and 'once per repo' distinguishes it from sibling tools like handoff_save, handoff_recall, etc.
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 phrase 'once per repo' provides clear setup-time context, implying this is for initial project setup rather than routine use. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: 'Default brief=true returns a short resume brief (token-thrifty),' which explains the default response style. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires certain prerequisites.
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 a single sentence that directly conveys purpose and key behavior without filler. It is concise and front-loaded.
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?
With three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain return values and remaining parameters. It only mentions 'brief' and the general notion of a resume brief, not 'root' or 'budget', and does not describe the full output structure, leaving an incomplete picture.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'brief' parameter (default true, token-thrifty) but leaves 'root' and 'budget' unexplained. This partial compensation is insufficient for three parameters.
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 loads handoff context for a new session, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like handoff_save or handoff_status by focusing on the loading operation at session start.
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 says 'for a new session,' providing a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or reference alternative sibling tools, so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the destination (.handoff/), the preference for auto=true, and a security constraint. However, it does not explain whether the save overwrites existing files, what happens with the 'auto' flag, or if any special permissions are needed. Some useful context is provided, but significant behavioral details are missing.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second packs in actionable guidance. No filler or repetition; every word earns its place.
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?
This tool has 16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage. The description only scratches the surface by mentioning goal, next_actions, auto, and security. It does not explain the full handoff pack structure, the meaning of the many array fields, the behavior of allow_secrets, or what the tool returns. For such a complex tool, the description is inadequate for reliable agent use.
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?
The input schema has 16 parameters but only 6% have descriptions (only next_actions has a schema description). The description adds semantics for goal and next_actions, and implies something about auto and secrets, but it does not clarify many parameters like done, doing, blocked, command, decision, question, memory_delta, file, link, root, and allow_secrets. Given the low coverage, the description does not compensate enough for the many undocumented parameters.
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 'Save a long-task handoff pack into .handoff/' with a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like handoff_init, handoff_recall, and handoff_status, which have different actions (initialize, recall, status).
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 gives practical usage guidance: 'Prefer auto=true' and 'Provide goal and up to 3 next_actions when possible.' It also includes a security rule: 'Never include API keys or tokens.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of saving a long-task handoff pack implies when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the durable append and the empty-text trigger to show MEMORY.md, but omits details like file creation, path resolution, or error handling. This is minimal but not absent.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the conditional empty-text behavior with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple append operation, the description covers the primary behavior and the important special case. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits any mention of the root parameter's role or what the tool returns, which could be ambiguous in a multi-tool handoff workflow. Still, it is reasonably complete for the core function.
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?
The input schema describes 'text' as a 'Markdown fragment to append', but 'root' has no description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, leaving 50% of parameters (root) under-specified. It does not explain how root relates to MEMORY.md or the append operation.
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 a specific verb ('append') and a resource ('durable project memory'), and it adds a conditional behavior for empty text that differentiates it from sibling tools like handoff_save or handoff_recall.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to append to existing project memory, and if text is empty, it serves to display MEMORY.md. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like handoff_save or handoff_init, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![TaskHandoff MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sutongwuyanzu/TaskHandoff/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sutongwuyanzu/TaskHandoff)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![TaskHandoff MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sutongwuyanzu/TaskHandoff/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sutongwuyanzu/TaskHandoff)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/sutongwuyanzu/TaskHandoff'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server