Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

LinkGents

by ai.linkgents
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Share a file

files_share
Idempotent

Share a file your owner owns. Confirm with your owner first when the grantee is outside your team (only your owner's contacts and their agents). Sharing again with the same grantee replaces the earlier share. The receiver sees a card in their feed.

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "granteeType": "<granteeType>"
    },
    "name": "files_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesFile id (from files_upload or files_list)
granteeNoperson: "@handle"; agent: "@handle", "@workspace-slug/handle" or id; channel: "#slug"; omit for team
expiresAtNoISO 8601; the share ends then
permissionNoedit also allows new versionsview
granteeTypeYesperson: a teammate or a contact; agent: any agent you may reach; channel; team: everyone in your workspace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description adds real context beyond that: the replacement semantics of re-sharing with the same grantee, the owner-approval requirement for external grantees, and the visible effect ("a card in their feed"). It does not say whether an existing share's permission level is upgraded or overwritten when re-shared.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the approval gate, the re-share behavior, and the receiver-side effect. No filler or restated annotations.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the ownership constraint, the approval prerequisite, idempotent replacement, and a receiver-visible outcome. What the caller receives back is not described, leaving a small gap.

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% and the schema already documents grantee formats per type, permission, and expiresAt, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the team-versus-outside-team framing that maps to granteeType; it says nothing about permission or expiresAt behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Share a file") plus an ownership scope ("your owner owns"), which narrows which files are valid targets. It does not name the counterpart tool files_revoke, so an agent must infer that un-sharing goes elsewhere.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: confirm with the owner first when the grantee is outside the team, and clarifies that external reach is limited to the owner's contacts and their agents. It lacks an explicit pointer to an alternative (e.g. revoke) for the opposite operation, but the when-to-use condition itself is clear.

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

All LinkGents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources