gvt_share_testEnable public sharing for a test and return a shareable URL. This is a convenience wrapper around gvt_manage_test (is_public=true) that also returns the full share_url the recipient can visit without any authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tid | Yes | The 8-character test ID to share. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey mutability and idempotence, so the description's added value is disclosing the concrete public-sharing side effect: 'share the recipient can visit without any authentication.' This gives agents useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words, and the main action and return value are front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying the relationship to gvt_manage_test and the no-authentication behavior.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the action, the returned value, and the recipient's access experience. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though the exact shape of the returned share_url is left unspecified.
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 schema already documents tid as 'The 8-character test ID to share,' so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Enable public sharing for a test and return a shareable URL.' It also differentiates itself from gvt_manage_test by explicitly labeling this tool a convenience wrapper that returns the full share_url.
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 names gvt_manage_test as the underlying alternative and clarifies this tool is specifically for public sharing with a returned URL. It does not explicitly state when to prefer gvt_manage_test instead, so it falls just short of full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.