Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

data_share

Share (or with remove=True, unshare) a datastore with another oto user. The recipient accesses it with their own oto account.

Identify the recipient by email, or by recipient_sub when one address carries several accounts — an ambiguous address is REFUSED, never guessed.

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": {
      "datastore": "<datastore>"
    },
    "name": "data_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
emailNoemail of the recipient oto user.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
removeNoTrue = revoke access instead of granting it.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
datastoreYesdatastore to (un)share (must be owned by you).
permissionNo'read' or 'write' (default write) — when sharing.read
recipient_subNothe recipient's `sub`, when `email` is ambiguous.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that ambiguous addresses are refused rather than guessed, and that the recipient gains access under their own identity, but it says nothing about whether revocation is immediate, what happens if the share already exists, whether the recipient must already have an oto account, or what permission escalation implies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then recipient identification, then the ambiguity guard. Every sentence earns its place; only minor slack from the parenthetical and line-broken formatting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core act and the key failure mode but leaves the agent unsure about idempotency, error conditions, and the effect of `permission` — gaps that matter when granting access to data.

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 schema already documents `remove`, `email`, `recipient_sub`, and `permission`. The description reinforces the remove/email/recipient_sub semantics with the REFUSED-on-ambiguity rule, which is real added meaning, but it does not touch `permission` (whose schema text is itself self-contradictory: 'read' or 'write' (default write) against default 'read') or the hidden _org/_group/_project/_run_id context params.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Share (or with remove=True, unshare) a datastore with another oto user') and adds the scope that the recipient uses their own account. This is clearly distinguishable from the neighbouring data_write, data_rows, and data_create_datastore tools.

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 a clear decision rule for choosing between the two recipient identifiers: use `email`, or `recipient_sub` when one address carries several accounts. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool (e.g. versus oto_admin_access_shadow or group/org-level access), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Tulina 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