Playbook

Share asset

share_asset

Idempotent

Create (or return the existing) shareable link for an asset. Returns a URL that anyone can open.

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "share_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

removedInput schema / properties / context

Removed 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"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "token",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "token"
+]

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing that the link is reusable ('or return the existing') and that it grants anonymous access ('anyone can open'), which is the key consequence an agent needs before exposing an asset. It does not explain how to revoke sharing or whether permissions scope the link, 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and following with the returned artifact. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: it creates or reuses a link and yields a publicly openable URL. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on revoking or scoping the share, which matters given the public-access implication but is partly handled by sibling tools.

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 the 'organization' parameter already carries detailed guidance about when to omit it, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about either parameter — notably it never connects the public-link behavior to workspace scoping. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Create (or return the existing) shareable link for an asset' — plus the return value ('a URL that anyone can open'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like share_board or get_asset_permalinks by naming 'link for an asset', though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when a public link is wanted, and the parenthetical '(or return the existing)' hints at idempotent reuse. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to nearby siblings such as add_asset_permalinks, get_asset_permalinks, remove_asset_permalinks, or resolve_share_link.

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

All Playbook tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?