share_getRead back what is published on your share link (text as text, images and PDFs as base64). Works after the plan ended too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_id | Yes | Utility instance id from buy or list_utilities. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Leave it out when your MCP app signed in to AgentMart (it is refused then). Otherwise your passport bearer token (amp_...) or session token (amp_s_...), only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header. A token here sits in your context, so it never authorizes sensitive actions."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: the return encoding (text as text, images and PDFs as base64) and the lifecycle note that it works after the plan ended.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and parenthetically pocketing the output-format detail. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description usefully describes the return format so an agent knows what to expect. It does not cover failure behavior (invalid instance_id) or auth edge cases, but for a simple read tool this is close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (instance_id, passport_token) are already documented in the schema, including where instance_id comes from. The description adds no further parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Read back') and resource ('share link'), and clarifies scope ('what is published'). An agent can distinguish this read operation from the sibling share_set write tool without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage is clear from the purpose (retrieve a published share), and 'Works after the plan ended too' hints at an availability edge case. However, it never states when to use this versus share_set, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid instance_id from buy/list_utilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.