Regenerate the capability token for a protected link and reset its timer. Returns a new share URL; the previous one stops working. The regenerated viewer secret code is shown only in the serve console, never here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | Optional updated TTL duration (e.g. 24h, 7d). | |
| label | Yes | Label of the link to renew. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: 'the previous one stops working' and 'the regenerated viewer secret code is shown only in the serve console, never here.' This clarifies side effects and security-sensitive return behavior.
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?
Three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key consequence, then a critical security caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the invalidation side effect, and the secret-code limitation. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if the label does not refer to a protected link, but overall the agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 the schema already documents both label and ttl. The description reinforces the timer-reset concept tied to ttl, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Regenerate the capability token for a protected link and reset its timer.' It clearly distinguishes this from revoke, protect/unprotect, and serve by describing renewal, return of a new share URL, and invalidation of the previous one.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for regenerating a link's token and extending its timer, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or contrast with revoke_link or protect_link. The behavior makes the use case fairly clear, but the description does not provide direct routing guidance among siblings.
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.
The lifecycle tools (serve, stop_remote, protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link) are clearly distinct. The only ambiguity is between account_status and links, which both report usage, live tunnels, and owned-link counts, though one is an account-level summary and the other a detailed link listing.
Most tools follow a clear lowercase verb_noun pattern (protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link, stop_remote). The main inconsistency is that query tools are nouns (account_status, links) and serve is a bare verb, but the style remains readable and predictable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a serve-and-link-management server: one publish action, one unpublish action, four protection lifecycle operations, and two query/status tools. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
The set covers the full remote-link lifecycle: publish content, stop/unpublish it, list links, check account status, and protect/renew/revoke/unprotect access. No obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the stated purpose.
