AutEng MCP - Markdown Publishing & Document Share Links

auteng_docs_create

Create a document in the agent's workspace.

Requires EIP-191 wallet signature auth. Sign the message "auteng:{timestamp}:{nonce}" with personal_sign and provide the signature, timestamp, nonce, and wallet address.

Args: wallet_address: 0x... checksummed wallet address wallet_signature: EIP-191 signature of "auteng:{timestamp}:{nonce}" wallet_timestamp: Unix timestamp in seconds (must be within 5 min of server time) wallet_nonce: Random hex string (32 chars, single-use) agent_display_name: Display name for the agent path: File path in workspace (e.g. "reports/q1.md"). Must end with extension. content: Markdown content (max 100 KB) title: Optional display title (derived from path if omitted)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`title`	No
`content`	Yes
`wallet_nonce`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes
`wallet_signature`	Yes
`wallet_timestamp`	Yes
`agent_display_name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the EIP-191 signature authentication requirement, exact message format, timestamp validity window, nonce constraints, content size limit, and path extension requirement. This is substantial behavioral context in the absence of annotations, fully carrying the burden.

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 efficiently organized with a one-sentence purpose, a concise auth block, and a bulleted arg list. The parameter details are necessary because the schema lacks descriptions, so the length is justifiable and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, authentication), the description is thorough: it covers auth flow, constraints, and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return semantics are not needed. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly documents every parameter with format details (e.g., checksummed address, Unix timestamp, 32-char nonce, max 100KB content, path extension requirement). This completely compensates 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 opens with a clear statement: 'Create a document in the agent's workspace.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, list, share, and update.

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 purpose statement implies when to use the tool, and the detailed authentication requirements provide clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like update or publish_markdown.

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

All AutEng MCP - Markdown Publishing & Document Share Links tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

CRUD operations (create/update/delete/list) are clearly distinct, and share/recent have clear purposes. However, 'recent' could be confused with 'list' (workspace vs public feed), and 'publish_markdown' overlaps with create+share. Descriptions help clarify these boundaries, so most tools are unambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

The auteng_docs_* pattern holds for create/delete/list/share/update, but 'auteng_docs_recent' uses an adjective instead of a verb, and 'auteng_publish_markdown' breaks the pattern by using verb-first naming and omitting 'docs'. The mixed conventions are still readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a markdown publishing and document sharing server. Each tool earns its place covering CRUD, sharing, a public feed, and a publish shortcut, without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core lifecycle (create, update, delete, list) and sharing, but lacks a single-document get tool to retrieve content by path. This is a minor gap since list provides paths and update can be done with full content, so agents can work around it.

Resources

Need Help?