TuneWorks

Get Share Build options

get_share_build_options

Read-only

Lists existing TuneWorks vehicles, setups, and sessions available for Share Build.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_share_build_options"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vehicleId`	No	Optional TuneWorks vehicle ID to narrow Share Build setup and session options.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`tool`	Yes	TuneWorks MCP tool name that produced this result.
`user`	No
`setups`	No
`status`	Yes	Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required.
`outcome`	No	Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.
`sessions`	No
`vehicles`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / outcome

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.",
+  "enum": [
+    "no_vehicles",
+    "vehicle_not_found",
+    "vehicle_selection_required",
+    "no_data"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."New value: +"Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that results are limited to items eligible for Share Build, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether unshared/in-use items are excluded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is lean, though the same words could have carried a short 'use before preview_share_build' clause at no length cost.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. What is missing is workflow context: this is a prerequisite lookup for preview_share_build/send_share_build, and that relationship is nowhere stated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the vehicleId property description already states it narrows setup and session options. The description contributes no additional syntax, format, or default behavior beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb plus three concrete resources (vehicles, setups, sessions) scoped to 'Share Build', which distinguishes it from generic siblings like list_vehicles or list_setups. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with preview_share_build and send_share_build, which is the pair an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to call this versus preview_share_build or send_share_build, and no mention that the returned IDs are the inputs to those tools. The sequence is only implied by the word 'options'; an agent must infer the workflow.

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

All TuneWorks 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?