Fast.io

fileshare

Destructive

File Shares: durable single-file share links. create/list/details/update/delete, per-user grants (grant-list/grant-add/grant-revoke incl. grant-by-email with pending invites), and direct read/preview/version URLs. Call action='describe' for the full action/param reference. Bound to ONE workspace file (immutable binding); deletion NEVER touches the bound file. Recipient 404 is UNIFORM — not-found / revoked / expired are indistinguishable by design (do not speculate). Passwords are supplied via the x-ve-password header (the password input) — never placed in URLs. Destructive: delete (removes the share, not the file). Reversible access change: grant-revoke (re-grantable). download-url / preview-url / version-download-url return a DIRECT API URL — gated shares require Authorization and/or x-ve-password HEADERS on the GET (the password is never embedded in the URL).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node`	No	create: the workspace FILE node opaque ID to bind the share to (required). The binding is immutable — share a different file by creating a new File Share.
`user`	No	grant-add / grant-revoke: the grantee's numeric user ID (19-digit). EXACTLY ONE of user / email.
`email`	No	grant-add / grant-revoke: the grantee's email. EXACTLY ONE of user / email. An unregistered email becomes a PENDING invite (auto-activates on signup; capped to the share's expiry).
`limit`	No	list: page size (1-500, default 100).
`title`	No	Human-readable share title. create / update.
`action`	Yes	Operation. Use 'describe' for full action reference.
`offset`	No	list: pagination offset (default 0).
`expires`	No	create/update: relative expiry in SECONDS from now (1..3155760000). Mutually exclusive with expires_at.
`password`	No	create/update: SET the share password. On consumer actions (details / download-url / preview-url / versions-list / version-download-url): supply the recipient password — forwarded ONLY as the x-ve-password header, never in a URL/log. update: send '' (empty string) to CLEAR an existing password.
`capability`	No	grant-add: the capability to grant — view \| download \| edit (ordered). `edit` allows content write-back. Required for grant-add.
`expires_at`	No	create/update: absolute expiry as 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS UTC' (no timezone = UTC). Mutually exclusive with expires. update: send '' (empty string) to CLEAR the expiry and make the share durable again.
`version_id`	No	version-download-url: the specific version OpaqueId to download (from versions-list / details).
`fileshare_id`	No	File Share ID (19-digit numeric). Required for every action except create / list.
`preview_type`	No	preview-url: the preview variant (e.g. 'image', 'pdf', 'video'). Multi-file previews 307-redirect to a token-bearing sub-file URL.
`workspace_id`	No	Parent workspace ID (19-digit or custom name). create / list — the management authz anchor.
`access_option`	No	Access tier: anyone_with_link \| any_registered \| named_people. create / update. `edit` capability is NEVER conferred by a tier — it always needs an explicit edit grant.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only indicating destructive/open world hints, the description adds rich context: immutable file binding, deletion safety, uniform 404 design, header-only password transmission, and reversibility of grant-revoke. These are non-obvious behaviors that govern invocation and error handling.

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 a dense paragraph, but given the tool's complexity (16 params, 13 sub-actions), every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and groups related details, though a bulleted format could improve scanability.

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?

Given the high parameter count and no output schema, the description covers critical behaviors: immutable binding, deletion semantics, uniform 404s, password header usage, expiry rules, capability tiers, and pending invite handling. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent to operate correctly.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema, such as direct URL behavior requiring Authorization/header on GET and explicit note that passwords never appear in URLs, which clarifies existing password-related 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 explicitly states 'File Shares: durable single-file share links' and enumerates the action families (create/list/details/update/delete, grants, direct URLs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'share' or 'upload' by naming the exact resource and operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides practical usage guidance: 'Call action="describe" for the full action/param reference' and explains when to use headers for password-protected shares. It also gives caveats like 'deletion NEVER touches the bound file' and 'do not speculate' on 404s, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion.

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

All Fast.io tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool covers a clearly distinct domain (auth, storage, shares, comments, events, AI, etc.), and overlapping concepts like share vs. fileshare are explicitly disambiguated with deprecation notes and cross-references. An agent can reliably select the correct tool for a task without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are all lowercase single words, but they mix nouns (user, org, workspace) with verbs (download, find, upload) and include a hyphenated 'how-to'. There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only pattern, though the names are still readable and memorable.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 sweet spot, but the platform's breadth (auth, file management, sharing, collaboration, AI, metadata, and help) justifies this count. Each tool represents a substantial domain area, so none feel redundant.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides full lifecycle coverage for the platform: authentication, user/org/workspace management, file storage/upload/download/search, sharing (both quickshare and durable file shares), comments, events, metadata pipelines, AI assistance, and product help. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent.

Resources

Need Help?