godkiller-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gk_handoff

Manage spec and feedback handoff gates by passing an action and optional arguments. Supports four actions; unknown actions return the list of allowed actions to save schema tokens.

Instructions

Spec/feedback handoff gates. Pass action= and optional args={}. 4 actions; unknown action returns allowed list (saves schema tokens).

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "gk_handoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`args`	No
`action`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that unknown actions return an allowed list (a useful trait), but it omits what the actual actions do, side effects, or safety implications, leaving the tool's behavior largely opaque.

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 very short and front-loaded; each sentence provides some information. The third sentence about unknown actions and token savings is arguably unnecessary but still relevant; overall it is concise and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation because it never names the 4 actions or explains what 'gates' do. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools, making the overall context insufficient for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'action' and optional 'args' but does not list the valid action values or describe the structure or purpose of args, adding little beyond the raw schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description says the tool is for 'Spec/feedback handoff gates' and takes an action, which gives a general sense of its role. However, it does not state a specific verb+resource or enumerate the 4 actions, and it does not clearly distinguish it from sibling gk_* tools.

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?

The description explains how to call the tool ('Pass action= and optional args={}') and hints that unknown actions return an allowed list, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server