Skip to main content
Glama

Revdoku

by com.revdoku

Bucket Publication Recipient Links

bucket_publication_recipient_links

Create personal links for a Require Email website: each tracked URL admits one recipient without the emailed OTP step and appears in Tracking Links with its engagement analytics. Recreating a recipient's link replaces its expiry and invalidates the previous URL. Defaults to allowlisted addresses; bare domains are skipped because links are per person. Pass emails for a subset. Removing an address from the allowlist or deleting its Tracking Link revokes access. Personal and ordinary tracking links share the account's recipient-link quota. Requires an account-owner connector with publish and bucket-write permission. Never share these links publicly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailsNoOptional subset of recipient email addresses. Omit to use the site's allowlisted addresses.
publication_idYesWebsite publication id returned by bucket_publish, bucket_publication_list, or bucket_get.
expires_in_daysNoLink lifetime in days (default 14, max 90).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond annotations: recreating invalidates previous URLs, removes access on allowlist removal, shares quota, requires specific permissions, and warns against public sharing. This is valuable context that annotations (all false) do not convey.

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 bit long but every sentence adds critical information—purpose, behavioral effects, permissions, quota, and security. It is front-loaded with the core action and well-structured, though slightly dense.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (permissions, revocation, quota, security), the description covers all key operational aspects. It doesn't specify the return value, but since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more explicit about what the API returns; however, the omission is acceptable for a create operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance: 'Pass emails for a subset' clarifies that parameter, and 'Defaults to allowlisted addresses' clarifies omission behavior. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('personal links for a Require Email website'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the unique OTP-free access and tracking link integration, making it unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool—for creating per-person links for Require Email publications. It explains default behaviors, how to subset via emails, and security constraints. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context is sufficient, and no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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

All Revdoku 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlaps exist: bucket_file_move and bucket_file_rename both handle same-bucket renames/moves, and bucket_file_reorganize overlaps with copy/move operations. The detailed descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries aren't always obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows predictable patterns: bucket_<verb> for bucket-level actions, bucket_file_<verb> for file operations, bucket_publication_<verb> for publications, and website_preview_* for previews. Minor deviations like bucket_create_from_template, bucket_set_public_slug, and bucket_update_publication_access deviate slightly but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 42 tools, the server is overweight for its scope. While the platform is feature-rich, many tools are narrowly specialized (e.g., bucket_publication_leads, bucket_lock_visibility_changes) and some are redundant (file_move vs file_rename vs file_reorganize), making the surface larger than necessary for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the full bucket lifecycle and most file operations, but there is no direct file delete tool (only via delete_missing in write_many or cross-bucket move soft-delete) and binary uploads are explicitly delegated to the CLI/REST. These are notable gaps for a complete file management workflow.

Resources