Create a revocable guest link. Optional expiresAt (ISO). WiFi password is never in Markdown: guests unlock it within 150 m of lat/lon. Requires Bearer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| expiresAt | No | ISO datetime, optional. Omit for no expiry. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / expiresAt / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO datetime, optional"New value: +"ISO datetime, optional. Omit for no expiry."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses the link is revocable, expiresAt is optional, the WiFi password is never embedded in Markdown but unlocked within 150 m of coordinates, and Bearer auth is required. It does not cover side effects on existing shares or error/return behavior, so it is not exhaustive.
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?
Four short sentences each add distinct information: the core action, the optional parameter, the location-based behavior, and the auth requirement. The main action is front-loaded, and there is 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 low-complexity create tool, the description covers key operational details (auth, expiry, guest behavior), but it omits the role of the required id and the expected return. An agent would likely infer id from the tool name, but the missing id semantics keep it from being fully self-sufficient.
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 coverage is only 50%; expiresAt has a schema description but id has none. The description mentions 'Optional expiresAt (ISO)' but largely repeats the schema, and it never explains that the required id identifies the fiche to share. This is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a revocable guest link.' This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_shares and revoke_share, which handle listing and revocation rather than creation.
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 action 'Create' implies usage when a new guest share is needed, and 'revocable' hints at pairing with revoke_share, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The proximity/location behavior offers context but not selection 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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: fiches have create/get/list/update/delete, shares have create/list/revoke, webhooks have register/list/update/delete, and geocode/status/subscribe are separate supporting operations. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as create_fiche, revoke_share, and register_webhook. Minor deviations exist—status is noun-only, subscribe has no explicit object, and list_fiches pluralizes while create_fiche does not—but the naming remains predictable.
Fifteen tools is within the ideal range and each tool maps to a concrete operation needed for the service: fiche lifecycle, sharing, webhooks, and account management. No redundant or filler tools are present.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for fiches, share creation/listing/revocation, webhook registration/listing/update/deletion, and account subscription/status. Agents can complete the main workflows around creating, sharing, and managing access sheets without dead ends.