Conversation Handoff MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.9.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: clear, list, load, merge, restart, save, and stats cover unique operations. The descriptions specify different actions (e.g., clearing vs. loading vs. merging), making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'handoff_verb' pattern (e.g., handoff_clear, handoff_list, handoff_load). This verb_noun structure is uniform throughout, with no deviations in style or casing, making the set predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing conversation handoffs. Each tool serves a specific function (e.g., saving, loading, clearing, merging), and none feel redundant or missing, fitting the domain's lifecycle needs appropriately.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD-like coverage for handoff management: save, load, list, clear, merge, restart, and stats. This covers the full lifecycle from creation to deletion, with no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of handling conversation handoffs.
Average 3.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'full conversation content', which is useful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Load a specific handoff by key') and adds the return value. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return value, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (key and max_messages). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('Load') and resource ('a specific handoff by key'), and specifies the return value ('full conversation content'). It distinguishes from siblings like handoff_list or handoff_clear by focusing on retrieval of a single item, but doesn't explicitly differentiate them in the text.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like handoff_list (for listing) or handoff_merge (for combining). The description implies usage for loading a handoff when you have its key, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('clear') but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and impact.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address functionality and parameter usage. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails (e.g., deletion, reset, or archival), potential consequences, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'key' documented as 'Optional: specific handoff key to clear.' The description adds minimal value by restating that if key is provided, it clears only that handoff; otherwise, it clears all. This aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional meaning or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('clear') and resource ('handoffs'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes between clearing a specific handoff versus all handoffs, which provides operational clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like handoff_list or handoff_restart, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description implies usage by stating 'If key is provided, clears only that handoff. Otherwise clears all,' which gives some context on when to use different parameter configurations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like handoff_restart or handoff_merge, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving gaps in decision-making.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions merging and combining data but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'merge' but not explicit), permission requirements, error handling, or what happens to source handoffs (only hinted at in the schema via 'delete_sources'). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action ('merge multiple handoffs into one') and efficiently detailing the scope ('combines conversations and metadata'). Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases), output details, and usage guidance, relying solely on the schema for parameter info. This is inadequate given the tool's complexity and potential impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why merging is needed or how parameters interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('merge multiple handoffs into one') and the resources involved ('handoffs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like handoff_list or handoff_load. It specifies what gets combined ('conversations and metadata') and the outcome ('single unified handoff'), providing a precise purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like handoff_clear or handoff_save, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It states what the tool does but offers no context for decision-making, leaving usage entirely implicit.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'monitoring usage,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two short sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete for a basic monitoring tool. However, it lacks details on what specific statistics or limits are returned, and without annotations or output schema, the agent might not fully understand the response format. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't have to compensate for missing schema information.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('storage statistics and current limits'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like handoff_list or handoff_load), which could have overlapping monitoring functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating it's 'Useful for monitoring usage,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., handoff_list for listing items or handoff_clear for clearing storage), and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: 'Returns lightweight metadata without full conversation content' clarifies the output scope, and 'Opens interactive UI if supported' indicates a potential UI interaction. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey key information: the core function and additional behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key behavioral traits (lightweight metadata, UI interaction). However, it could benefit from more explicit differentiation from siblings to fully guide usage in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all saved handoffs with summaries.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('saved handoffs'), and scope ('all'), distinguishing it from siblings like handoff_load or handoff_save. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from handoff_stats, which might also list metadata, leaving room for slight ambiguity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Returns lightweight metadata without full conversation content,' which hints at its output but doesn't clarify when to choose it over siblings like handoff_load (which might retrieve full content) or handoff_stats (which could provide statistical summaries). No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.
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 full burden. It explains the tool's behavior regarding format selection and template usage, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether saves are permanent, if they overwrite existing handoffs, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds useful context about format trade-offs but leaves other aspects unspecified.
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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections. The purpose is stated upfront, followed by format guidance and template details. While comprehensive, some template details could be considered overly verbose for a tool description, though they're relevant to usage.
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?
Given 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, format options, and usage guidelines thoroughly. However, it doesn't describe what happens after saving (e.g., confirmation message, error conditions) or how saved handoffs integrate with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the rationale behind format choices ('Much faster — reduces output tokens to ~5-20%'), provides detailed template guidance for structured format, and clarifies when to use verbatim format. This adds significant value over the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 purpose: 'Save a conversation handoff for later retrieval' with the specific goal of 'pass[ing] conversation context to another AI or project.' It distinguishes from siblings like handoff_load (retrieval) and handoff_clear (deletion) by focusing on saving/persisting data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each format option: 'structured' is 'default' and 'Best for most handoffs,' while 'verbatim' should be used 'only when exact wording matters (e.g., legal text, precise error messages).' It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on saving rather than loading, clearing, or listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the destructive effect ('All stored handoffs will be lost') and the reason ('data is in-memory'), which are crucial for understanding the tool's impact. However, it does not cover other potential aspects like permissions or rate limits.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the action and usage context, and the second warns of data loss. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive restart operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and critical behavioral impact (data loss). However, it lacks details on what 'unhealthy state' means or any error handling, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and effects. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the zero-parameter case well without unnecessary details.
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 specific action ('Restart the shared HTTP server') and the resource ('shared HTTP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like handoff_clear or handoff_list. It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the purpose ('when the server is in an unhealthy state').
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('when the server is in an unhealthy state'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage guidance without being fully explicit about exclusions or comparisons to siblings.
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:

[![conversation-handoff-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/trust-delta/conversation-handoff-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/trust-delta/conversation-handoff-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![conversation-handoff-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/trust-delta/conversation-handoff-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/trust-delta/conversation-handoff-mcp)

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/trust-delta/conversation-handoff-mcp'

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