share_markdownShare a markdown file and get a public URL. Returns an edit token that can be used later to update or delete the share.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expiry | No | How long the link stays live (default 30d; "never" keeps it forever) | |
| content | Yes | The markdown content to share | |
| filename | No | Optional filename for the markdown file |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool produces a public URL and returns an edit token for future management, which are key behaviors not visible in the schema. It could add more (e.g., token secrecy, persistence), but for a simple creation tool this is solid context.
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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Share a markdown file'), and the second sentence adds the essential token detail without redundancy.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the public URL outcome and the edit token. It does not explain the response shape or default expiry, but the schema already covers expiry, and the overall context is simple enough that the description suffices.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning; it only references the overall action, which is already implied by the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Share a markdown file and get a public URL.' It uses a specific verb ('share') and resource ('markdown file'), and the mention of an edit token for later updates/deletes distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_share and update_share.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (to create a share) and hints at alternatives by saying the token can be used later to update or delete. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct action: sharing creates, update_share modifies, delete_share removes. No overlap in purpose, and the edit token requirement clearly separates operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: share_markdown, update_share, delete_share. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only three tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose: sharing and managing markdown shares. Each tool is essential and the count is appropriate.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a share: create (share_markdown), update (update_share), and delete (delete_share). Reading is handled via the public URL, so no additional tool is needed.