Skip to main content
Glama

folder_unshare

Quita el acceso directo de una persona a una carpeta (de notas, issues, bitácoras o tareas recurrentes). Hace falta rol full u owner, salvo para quitarte a ti mismo. Los accesos heredados se quitan en la carpeta donde se dieron.

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": {
      "section": "<section>",
      "folderId": "<folderId>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "folder_unshare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail de la persona
sectionYesÁrbol de la carpeta: notes, issues, logs (bitácoras) o tasks (tareas recurrentes)
folderIdYesID de la carpeta

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the permission requirement, the self-removal exception, and the inheritance constraint. Gaps remain: what happens if the email has no access, whether the removal is immediate/reversible, and the effect on other shared users.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the authorization rule is front-loaded directly after the purpose. The final sentence about inherited access is terse but load-bearing.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-required-param revocation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, authorization, and the inheritance caveat adequately. It stops short of failure/idempotency behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already documented, including the section enum values. The description's mention of folder types loosely maps to 'section' but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('quita el acceso directo') plus resource (carpeta) and target (una persona), and enumerates the folder trees covered (notas, issues, bitácoras, tareas). Clearly distinguishable from folder_share (grants) and folder_shares_list (lists).

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 precondition — full or owner role required, except when removing yourself — and instructs that inherited access must be removed at the folder where it was granted. No named alternative tool or explicit when-not, but the operational context is strong.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources