shareIssue a signed, expiring guest view URL for any tier (?vt=…). Use for private run reports without forever-tier password auth. Returns { url, viewToken, expiresAt }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenantId | Yes | ||
| sessionToken | No | ||
| expiresSeconds | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the link is signed, expiring, works for any tier, and returns a specific object shape. It also clarifies the auth context ('without forever-tier password auth'). It does not, however, disclose prerequisites like sessionToken or potential side effects of issuing multiple links.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every phrase adds value, including the use case and return format, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
The description covers the tool's core function, usage context, and return value, which is good given no output schema. However, the lack of parameter semantics and any mention of error conditions or prerequisites makes it only partially complete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides little direct parameter guidance. It indirectly references expiresSeconds via 'expiring' and the response's expiresAt, but tenantId and sessionToken are not explained at all, leaving an agent to guess their roles.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Issue') and resource ('signed, expiring guest view URL'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like auth or deploy. It also includes the exact query parameter format (`?vt=…`), making the tool's function unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states a key use case: 'Use for private run reports without forever-tier password auth.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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.
Core actions like hatch, convert, upload, and lookup are generally distinct, but the polling family (poll_approval, poll_decision, poll_pairing) is easy to confuse, and await_decision misleadingly sounds like a wait operation rather than the creation of a review. Descriptions clarify boundaries, but the names alone leave room for misselection.
Most tools use an imperative verb style, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (hatch, convert, deploy, list, lookup, share, upload), some are verb_noun (poll_decision, refresh_session, get_pairing_code), and auth is a bare noun. The names are readable but do not follow one predictable convention.
16 tools sits at the heavy end of the comfortable range, inflated by three polling tools plus pairing/session management that are only tangentially related to the core task of creating and updating roosts. Each tool has a purpose, but the surface feels larger than the core domain requires.
The set covers create, read/list, update via convert/upload/deploy, sharing, and auth, but there is no delete/destroy or teardown tool, and custom domain/state management is only passively visible through lookup. Agents can complete common workflows but will hit dead ends on teardown or lifecycle management.