Skip to main content
Glama

Pane

by com.paneui.relay

Manage App Grant Links

grants
Destructive

A v2 app's grant links (M5). A grant link is a capability URL that confers a declared custom role (x-homespun-manifest.roles) on a stable per-holder anonymous identity, so a holder's own rows are isolated by author/:own scoping. A grant does not escalate to owner, member or agent. Actions: mint creates a link and returns a grant_url carrying the token in its #g= fragment, shown once and not recoverable afterwards; list returns the app's links and never a token; revoke is idempotent. mode 'once' is one-time, claimed by the first browser to open it; 'multi' is shared, capped by max_uses within expiry. An optional pin (pin_row_key or pin_where) narrows a holder to specific rows and never widens their access. One consequence worth knowing when minting: a write-only grant pinned to a single row key can still read that row's existing data back through create dedup, so such a grant exposes that row's current contents to the holder.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNomint only. once: one-time link, claimed by the first browser that opens it (a real per-person link; later opens by others are inert). multi (default): a shared link, capped by max_uses within expiry.
roleNomint only. A declared custom role for the app (an x-homespun-manifest.roles key). A built-in role (owner/member/agent/anyone) is rejected: a grant can never escalate.
labelNomint only. Optional owner label shown in the grant list.
actionYesmint: create a grant link carrying a declared custom role (app_id+role). list: the app's grant links (app_id). revoke: revoke one link (app_id+grant_id).
app_idYesThe app id.
grant_idNorevoke only. The grant link id (see list's `id` field).
max_usesNomint only (multi mode). Cap total claims; omit for unlimited within expiry. Ignored for once (forced to 1).
pin_whereNomint only. Optional narrowing pin as Wave C2 where conditions ({field, op, value}[]). Narrows within the role (never widens). Mutually exclusive with pin_row_key.
pin_row_keyNomint only. Optional narrowing pin to a single row key. Narrows within the role (never widens). Mutually exclusive with pin_where.
ttl_secondsNomint only. Grant lifetime in seconds; defaults to the server default (30 days) and is clamped to the server max.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: grant_url is shown once and unrecoverable, list never returns tokens, revoke is idempotent, and the subtle edge case where a write-only pinned grant can read existing row data. These details add significant value even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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?

The description is a dense paragraph but each sentence carries unique information. It could be formatted with bullet points for easier scanning, but it is not padded or redundant—every clause contributes to understanding.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains key return behavior (mint returns grant_url in #g= fragment, list returns links but never tokens). It covers all actions, modes, pins, and a security-relevant edge case, making it nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds extra meaning beyond the raw parameter descriptions: it clarifies mode behavior (once claimed by first browser, multi capped by max_uses), explains that pins narrow access, and highlights the write-only grant dedup consequence. This goes beyond what the schema alone communicates.

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 description clearly states what the tool does: manages app grant links, which are capability URLs conferring declared custom roles. It enumerates the three actions (mint, list, revoke) and explicitly notes that grants do not escalate to owner/member/agent, distinguishing it from any sibling tools.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use each action (mint vs list vs revoke) and explains mode semantics (once vs multi) and pin limitations. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but none of the siblings overlap, so the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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

All Pane toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: row operations (get/list/upsert/update/delete/restore) are clearly separated, while apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members, publisher, review, and taste each cover a different domain. Even closely related actions like share_link_rotate and domain_set have clearly scoped descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use two patterns: noun-like names for resource areas (apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members) and verb_noun names for row operations (upsert_row, delete_row, etc.). This deviation is predictable and readable, but it is not perfectly uniform, so a slight deduction applies.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of the platform (app lifecycle, data storage, attachments, community, reviews, feedback, identity) justifies the count. Each tool represents a meaningful feature area with multiple internal actions, so none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for apps (create, read, update, delete), rows (create, read, update, delete, restore, list deleted), attachments, membership, grants, ingest, community, and reviews. Obvious gaps like rollback or version history are not core to the domain, and the presence of get_skill helps agents understand the workflow.

Resources