fuast

Share an app

share_app

DestructiveIdempotent

Changes who can open an app. visibility: private (the owner and invited people), workspace (everyone at the owner's company), or public (anyone with the link, guests included). invite adds people by email and sends each an email; remove takes people off the list. Do this only when the person asks for it. Returns the resulting sharing.

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": {
      "app": "<app>"
    },
    "name": "share_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	Yes	The app's slug: the first label of its address (my-app for https://my-app.fuast.com). list_apps shows the slugs you can use.
`invite`	No	Email addresses to give access to.
`remove`	No	Email addresses to take off the access list.
`visibility`	No	New sharing mode. Leave out to keep the current one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`invited`	No
`removed`	No
`visibility`	Yes
`shared_with`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: invite sends an email to each person, remove revokes access, and omitting visibility preserves the current mode — concrete side effects an agent must anticipate. It doesn't spell out irreversibility of a public link or any rate limits, which keeps it below 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?

Dense and front-loaded: identity of the tool first, mode definitions next, side effects and the permission gate last, with no filler. 'Returns the resulting sharing' is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, costing a fraction of a point.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with four parameters, the description covers what changes, what the values mean, the email side effect, the preserve-by-default behavior, and the permission norm. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the ambiguous enum by defining private (owner plus invited), workspace (whole company) and public (anyone with the link, guests included) — a distinction the schema only labels. It also clarifies that invite/remove operate on emails and that visibility is optional.

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?

The opening sentence 'Changes who can open an app' is a precise verb+resource statement that no sibling (delete_app, update_app_files, deploy_app) could be mistaken for. The follow-up enumerates the three visibility modes, so the scope of the tool is unambiguous before the schema is opened.

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?

'Do this only when the person asks for it' is an explicit gating condition that tells the agent not to share proactively — real when-to-use guidance, not implied. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but no sibling competes for this behavior, so the missing exclusion is minor.

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

All fuast tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?