share_assetCreate (or return the existing) shareable link for an asset. Returns a URL that anyone can open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Asset token | |
| organization | No | Workspace slug, as returned by list_organizations. Omit it when the account has a single workspace — it is then resolved from your token. Pass it only when the account has several, or when you mean a workspace other than the obvious one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / contextRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "token",
- "context"
-]New value: +[
+ "token"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by confirming idempotent behavior ('or return the existing') and, more importantly, disclosing that the produced URL is publicly accessible to anyone — a security-relevant consequence the annotations only imply via openWorldHint.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and trailing with the return value. No filler.
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 two-parameter, single-purpose tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the definition covers what it does, what it produces, and that the link is public. Minor gaps remain: permissions required to share, and whether the link can be revoked or expires.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the organization parameter is documented in detail in the schema, so the description need not compensate. It adds nothing about token or organization semantics, making this baseline-level.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Create ... shareable link for an asset') and adds the salient behavioral fact that it returns an existing link rather than duplicating one, plus the result ('a URL that anyone can open'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as share_board, add_asset_permalinks, or resolve_share_link.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (add_asset_permalinks, share_board, resolve_share_link). The only usable signal is the idempotency aside, which is behavioral rather than 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.