agent4.io

create_share

Create a share / integration entry point for an agent — this is how end users actually reach it.

**`published=True` only means "visible", not "reachable"**: for end users to talk to the agent
you must create a share. The response carries a directly openable chat link
(`{public_base}/s/<token>`) and the website embed URL (`{public_base}/embed/<token>`).
For a website widget, paste one line before </body>:
`<script src="{public_base}/embed.js" data-token="<token>"></script>`.
label names this entry point ("website widget", "support link"). Telegram/WhatsApp and other
channels are connected separately on the agent's Integration page in the console.

**No website?** Hand the returned `chat_url` or `qr_url` (QR code) straight to the tenant:
print it on business cards / flyers / in-store; scanning opens a full-page chat, no login,
returning visitors are remembered per browser.

**For links you give to humans, prefer `pretty_url`** (when present in the response):
`{public_base}/t/<tenant alias>/<agent alias>` — memorable, printable, survives token rotation.
No pretty_url = aliases not fully set — **fix that proactively**: agent alias via
`create_agent`'s alias param or `PUT /agents/{name}/alias`; tenant alias in console → Settings.
The `/s/<token>` link still works, but it is the machine/embed form, not one to read out to a
person.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No
`agent_name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses return values (chat_url, qr_url, pretty_url), the behavior of token rotation, the distinction between machine/embed forms and human-friendly links, and provides integration code. It also explains what the share enables and the consequences of not setting aliases, offering transparency beyond a simple 'create' operation.

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 long but well-structured with bolded key points and logical sections. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, output, embedding, alternative channels, and best practices. It is not redundant, but the length exceeds typical descriptions, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is exceptionally complete for a tool with an output schema. It explains the output fields in detail, provides real-world usage scenarios (no website, business cards, embed widget), and links to related setup steps. It covers all aspects an agent would need to use this tool correctly, even beyond the schema.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the 'label' parameter with examples ('website widget', 'support link') and implies the role of 'agent_name' as the target agent. However, it doesn't explicitly define 'agent_name' beyond the schema, leaving a minor gap.

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: 'Create a **share / integration entry point** for an agent — this is how end users actually reach it.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_storyline and configure_share, and it explains the core concept of 'published vs reachable.'

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?

The description provides extensive guidance on when to use the tool and how to handle different scenarios. It explicitly says 'published=True only means visible, not reachable' and instructs to 'fix that proactively' when pretty_url is missing. It also directs users to alternative channels (Telegram/WhatsApp) and explains when to prefer pretty_url over the /s/ link, giving clear decision criteria.

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

All agent4.io 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?