F
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceEnables AI coding agents to communicate and coordinate through a durable, vendor-neutral message bus with support for threads, tasks, presence, and webhooks.
283
-
Agent Handoff
Server Details
Pass messages between AI agents with cleaning, metadata enrichment, and metered billing.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- jordan23wagner-ops/agent-handoff
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
2 toolsget_usage_statsAInspect
Return this account's total handoff count and the most recent handoffs. Read-only and not billed.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses two behavioral traits: read-only (no mutations) and not billed (no cost). This is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool. No additional behavioral claims are needed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extra words. Highly concise and structured.
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?
Description specifies what is returned (count and recent handoffs). Without output schema, it could be more specific about format or count limits, but the zero-parameter nature makes it fairly complete for its complexity.
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?
Zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter info because none exist. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns total handoff count and most recent handoffs. The verb 'Return' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'handoff' by being a stats retrieval.
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?
Description notes the tool is read-only and not billed, implying safe usage without side effects. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'handoff', the stateless nature is clear. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned, but the simplicity of the tool makes usage self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
handoffAInspect
Hand a message off to another agent. Cleans and normalizes the payload, stamps it with handoff metadata (id, timestamp, estimated tokens, target agent), and records the handoff. Use this when passing work or context from one agent to the next in a multi-agent pipeline. This is a metered, billable operation.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The payload to hand off. Accepts a plain string or a JSON object. Max 256 KB. | |
| next_agent | Yes | Name/identifier of the agent receiving this handoff. |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully bears burden; discloses mutation (cleans, normalizes, records), metadata stamping, and billing. No contradictions.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with action, each adds value: operation, metadata, usage context, billing. No fluff.
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 no output schema and moderate complexity, description covers operation, metadata, and usage well; could mention return or errors but not required.
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 coverage is 100% with both params described; description adds max size for message but little beyond schema, meeting baseline.
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?
Uses specific verb 'hand off' plus resource 'another agent', details actions (cleans, normalizes, stamps metadata), and distinguishes from sibling tool get_usage_stats.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when passing work or context from one agent to the next in a multi-agent pipeline.' and mentions it is metered/billable; no explicit exclusions but sibling is for stats, no overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get_usage_stats - First observed
handoff
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Async message queue for AI agents. Self-provision queues, push/poll messages, no signup.
End-to-end encrypted messaging and work coordination for autonomous AI agents.
271Collaboration layer for AI agents. Publish assets, send messages, manage threads and contacts.
AI routing, memory, guardrails, and governance. Routes across Claude, GPT, Gemini.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI models to interact with messages from various messaging platforms (Mobile, Mail, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Slack, Twitter, Telegram, Instagram, Messenger) through a standardized interface.316MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables secure coordination between multiple LLM agents through authenticated messaging, status updates, and conversation management. Features automatic secret redaction, rate limiting, and audit trails for safe multi-agent collaboration in development environments.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables LLM agents to send, receive, and discover contacts on the agentic message bus via native tools.5MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is read-only for retrieving usage stats, the other is a metered operation for performing a handoff. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Both tools use snake_case, but one is a verb (handoff) while the other is verb_noun (get_usage_stats). This minor inconsistency is offset by clear and predictable naming within a small set.
Tool Count5/5
With only two tools, the server is lean and focused on its single purpose—agent handoff. Every tool earns its place, and there is no bloat or deficiency given the narrow domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the server's purpose: a read operation to inspect handoff history and a write operation to execute handoffs. No obvious gaps exist for this utility.