Crank Protocol

share_journal_card

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pre-filled post for a journal card, ready to publish (free read).

Returns the same card as get_journal_card plus a platform-shaped share payload: post text within the platform's character limit, the public card URL, and a compose-intent URL. platform is x | farcaster | generic.

The copy is about YOUR process -- what your agent decided, that the rationale was written down before the outcome, and that the record is checkable on-chain. It never states or implies a return.

THIS CALL PUBLISHES THE DECISION. Your journal is private by default; calling this marks THIS decision publicly readable at its card URL so the link in the post resolves for anyone (and for answer engines). Nothing else is published -- not your other decisions, not amounts, not your journal body unless include_rationale=true. Reviewing with get_journal_card publishes nothing.

Workflow: SHARE step -- get_journal_card to review, this to publish.

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": {
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>",
      "decision_id": "<decision_id>"
    },
    "name": "share_journal_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`platform`	No	x
`caller_id`	No
`decision_id`	Yes
`wallet_address`	Yes
`include_rationale`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint:true, but the description repeatedly states 'THIS CALL PUBLISHES THE DECISION' and 'calling this marks THIS decision publicly readable at its card URL.' This is a direct contradiction between the structured annotation and the described side effect, so behavioral transparency scores 1 per the rubric.

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?

The description is substantive but front-loaded, beginning with what the tool returns and immediately flagging the publish side effect. The privacy section earns its place because it clarifies exactly what becomes public, and the workflow line is a compact routing instruction.

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?

The description covers return shape, platform options, privacy boundaries, and the intended workflow, which is strong for a publication tool. It stops short of a perfect score because caller_id is undocumented and the exact platform character limits are not stated, though an output schema exists to carry return details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does add value for platform ('x | farcaster | generic') and include_rationale ('journal body unless include_rationale=true'). However, caller_id is never explained, and wallet_address/decision_id are only inferable from context, leaving gaps for a tool with five parameters.

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 names a specific action and resource: it produces a pre-filled, ready-to-publish post for a journal card and returns a platform-specific share payload. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_journal_card by noting it returns the same card plus the share payload and that review alone publishes nothing.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage context is explicit: 'Workflow: SHARE step -- get_journal_card to review, this to publish' and 'Reviewing with get_journal_card publishes nothing.' This tells an agent exactly when to call this tool versus the review tool and warns that this call has publish side effects.

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

All Crank Protocol 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?