share_appGive one email address access to an app as a viewer or an editor. An address without an account gets a grant that starts working the first time they sign in. Owner only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | viewer can open it, editor can also publish versions. | |
| Yes | The address to share with. | ||
| app_id | Yes | The app id, as returned by search_apps or create_app. Starts with app_. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is not read-only and is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: an address without an account receives a grant that activates at first sign-in, and only the owner can perform the share. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: core action, edge-case behavior, and authorization constraint. It is front-loaded, compact, and contains 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 simple 3-parameter side-effect operation with a fully documented schema, the description covers the main operational caveats: owner-only access, viewer/editor roles, and the delayed activation for new addresses. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description supplements this by explaining the behavioral meaning of 'email' for accounts that do not exist yet, and by framing the role as 'viewer or editor.' It does not add much to app_id, but it still adds value beyond the raw schema.
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 names a concrete action ('Give one email address access') with a specific resource (an app), a recipient, and a role choice. It also adds the 'Owner only' qualifier, which distinguishes it from other access-related tools. There is no ambiguity or tautology.
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 gives clear context by stating the owner-only prerequisite and explaining the no-account edge case, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like set_app_access or revoke_app_share. The when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.
The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.
24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.
The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.