List an agent's shares (token / label / disabled / chat link / embed URL / appearance config).
When the top-level `pretty_url` is non-empty it is the preferred link to give humans
(see create_share).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the returned fields and the nuance that 'pretty_url' is the preferred link for humans. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and no hidden side effects are suggested, though it does not explicitly state auth requirements or pagination behavior.
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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and field list, then adds a concise, valuable note about pretty_url. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the essential behavior, output fields, and a key nuance about the preferred link. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results, though it lacks explicit notes about empty results or error conditions.
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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does connect the single parameter 'agent_name' to 'an agent's shares', giving some meaning. However, it does not clarify whether the value is the agent's name vs. ID, case sensitivity, or relationship to agent_name used in other tools beyond a cross-reference to create_share.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List an agent's shares' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also enumerates the content of the listing (token, label, disabled, chat link, embed URL, appearance config), and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_share and configure_share.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is the listing operation, as opposed to create/configure variants. It also gives practical guidance about the 'pretty_url' field and cross-references 'see create_share', but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.
With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.
The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.