Skip to main content
Glama

elaichi__connection__share

Grant a person, a team, or the whole organization access to a connection at one of three levels: "view" (see that it exists), "use" (also bind it into their own toolbox entries and run its tools), or "edit" (also rename it and start a reconnect) — even "edit" never lets the grantee transfer or delete the connection; that stays with the owner or connection:manage. grantee_id is required when grantee_type is "user" or "team" and must be omitted for "org" — the schema cannot express that conditional, so check it yourself. Re-sharing to the same grantee updates the level rather than adding a second grant; to take access away use connection.unshare, which identifies the grant the same way. This is the ONLY non-destructive way to give someone else access to your connection — connection.transfer instead REASSIGNS OWNERSHIP, which removes it from your own connection.list the moment it completes, so never reach for transfer when the user asked to "share", "give access to", or "let someone use" a connection. Returns the ACL entry plus { connection_id }; for a "user" share the entry also carries grantee: { id, name, email }, so you can confirm by name who was granted access.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesConnection id (`conn_…`) from connection.list.
levelYes"view" = see it exists, "use" = also bind it into their own toolbox entries and run its tools, "edit" = also rename it and start a reconnect — never transfer or delete it.
grantee_idNoA USER id (`usr_…`, from member.list) when grantee_type is "user", or a TEAM id (`team_…`, from team.list) when it is "team". Required for both despite not being listed in `required`; omit it entirely for "org".
grantee_typeYesWho is being granted access.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description goes further: it discloses the exact security boundaries (even 'edit' cannot transfer/delete), idempotent-like behavior (re-sharing updates level), and ownership implications. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence carries unique, actionable information. The core purpose and levels are front-loaded, followed by conditional logic, idempotent semantics, and sibling differentiation. No filler or repetition; the verbosity is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies return shape (ACL entry, connection_id, grantee object for user shares). It covers conditional validation, permission nuances, sibling differentiation, and edge cases. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly on the first attempt.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. However, the description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: it explains the conditional requirement for grantee_id that the schema cannot express, defines the precise meaning of each level, and specifies the return structure. This goes beyond baseline and compensates for schema limitations.

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 states a clear verb ('Grant') and resource ('access to a connection'), specifies three levels with concrete meanings, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools connection.unshare and connection.transfer. An agent can precisely understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance (the only non-destructive way to give access), when-not-to-use guidance (never transfer for 'share'), and names the alternative for removing access (connection.unshare). It also clarifies the conditional requirement for grantee_id based on grantee_type. No ambiguity remains.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources