AutEng Docs — Agent Document Workspace & Publishing

auteng_docs_share

Share a document publicly. Returns a shareable URL.

Rate limited to 10 shares per wallet per day. Requires EIP-191 wallet signature auth. See auteng_docs_create for auth details.

Args: wallet_address: 0x... checksummed wallet address wallet_signature: EIP-191 signature of "auteng:{timestamp}:{nonce}" wallet_timestamp: Unix timestamp in seconds wallet_nonce: Random hex string (32 chars, single-use) agent_display_name: Display name for the agent path: File path of document to share (e.g. "reports/q1.md") visibility: Share visibility — only "public" in current version

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": {
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>",
      "wallet_signature": "<wallet_signature>",
      "wallet_timestamp": "<wallet_timestamp>",
      "wallet_nonce": "<wallet_nonce>",
      "agent_display_name": "<agent_display_name>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "auteng_docs_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	Yes
`visibility`	No	public
`wallet_nonce`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes
`wallet_signature`	Yes
`wallet_timestamp`	Yes
`agent_display_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedFeb 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate limited to 10 shares per wallet per day'), authentication requirements ('Requires EIP-191 wallet signature auth'), and the visibility constraint ('only public in current version'). However, it does not mention side effects like whether shares can be revoked or what happens if the path doesn't exist.

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 well-structured: purpose and return value first, then rate limit and auth, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded main action makes the tool's intent immediately clear.

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?

The description covers the main action, return value, auth, rate limit, and parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so it need not elaborate on return structure. However, it lacks context on when to use versus alternatives and does not mention potential error behaviors or side effects, leaving some gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful detail for auth parameters (signature format, timestamp type, nonce length and single-use), provides a path example, and clarifies the visibility constraint. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 'Share a document publicly. Returns a shareable URL.' This uses a specific verb (share) and resource (document), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, list, update, and publish_markdown by focusing on the sharing action.

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?

Usage is implied by the first sentence, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auteng_publish_markdown. It mentions 'See auteng_docs_create for auth details' but that is about authentication, not usage context. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

All AutEng Docs — Agent Document Workspace & Publishing tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?