Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Baton

Baton

by timurabi3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

baton_log

Log a progress update to the shared project ledger for mid-task milestones, enabling context continuity without a full handoff.

Instructions

Drop a lightweight progress breadcrumb into the ledger without a full baton pass. Use for mid-task milestones.

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": {
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "baton_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
projectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the operation is lightweight and non-handoff, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain persistence, side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the usage qualifier is added second, making it highly scannable.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the when-to-use context is adequate. But the absence of any parameter explanation and minimal behavioral detail means an agent still has to infer some invocation specifics.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no meaning to either 'note' or 'project.' The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and general context, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action ('Drop'), a specific resource ('breadcrumb into the ledger'), and explicitly contrasts it with a full baton pass, distinguishing it from sibling baton_pass. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 says 'Use for mid-task milestones,' which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies avoiding this tool for full handoffs by saying 'without a full baton pass,' though it does not explicitly name which sibling tool to prefer in that case.

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