RelayLink

Share a decision with a project

notebook_share_fact

Record one short statement everybody on a RelayLink project can see: a decision, a constraint, or an open question. Call it ONLY when the user has asked for this in their own message — it makes their words visible to the other people on that project, which is not something to do on their behalf because it seemed useful. Their private notes stay private; this copies the words they choose. There is no way to edit a shared fact once recorded — it can be retired from the project page, and the corrected wording shared again as a new one. This is the user's RelayLink notebook, for material they are keeping: use it when they name RelayLink or their notebook, when they are continuing work already kept here, or when they pick a RelayLink entry. A durable fact ABOUT them — how they like to be worked with, what they are working on — is memory_add's instead, and a project-scoped preference or one with an end date is this notebook's. A bare "add a task" or "save this note" may be meant for another connected app, and a destination they name outright is always the destination. If more than one place is plausible and nothing settles it, ask once, then stay with the answer for the rest of the task.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "notebook_share_fact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	decision, constraint or question.
`text`	Yes	The statement, in the user's own words. At most 2000 characters.
`project`	Yes	The project's name or id. It must already exist and be one the user can see — a project the user owns, or one they have joined.
`fromEntry`	No	Optionally the entry_id this came from, so the project records where it was promoted from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the statement becomes visible to other project members, private notes are untouched, and there is no edit path — only retirement plus re-sharing. That irreversibility disclosure is exactly the kind of context destructiveHint=false alone would not convey. It stops short of describing the return value or what a failed share looks like, so a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action and the consent gate before the edge cases, and nearly every sentence carries distinct routing or safety information. It is on the long side for a 4-parameter tool, and the closing multi-app ambiguity paragraph could be compressed, but nothing is pure filler.

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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: consent precondition, audience, irreversibility and the recovery path, plus sibling routing. Nothing material is left for the caller to guess.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented at the field level and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds indirect meaning — 'copies the words they choose' for text, and 'when they pick a RelayLink entry' for fromEntry — but supplies no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Record one short statement everybody on a RelayLink project can see' — and enumerates the three admissible kinds (decision, constraint, open question). It explicitly carves itself away from memory_add and from other connected apps' note-taking, so an agent can place it among ~60 siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating rule ('Call it ONLY when the user has asked for this in their own message'), positive triggers (user names RelayLink/notebook, continues prior work, picks a RelayLink entry), a named alternative for durable personal facts (memory_add), and a disambiguation protocol ('ask once, then stay with the answer'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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

All RelayLink tools Inspect

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

Need Help?