TuneWorks

Preview Share Build

preview_share_build

Read-only

Summarizes selected Share Build vehicle, setups, sessions, recipients, and message without sending email.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vehicleId": "<vehicleId>"
    },
    "name": "preview_share_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	No	Optional message to include in the Share Build email.
`setupIds`	No	Optional TuneWorks setup IDs to include.
`vehicleId`	Yes	TuneWorks vehicle ID selected for Share Build.
`recipients`	No	Recipient email addresses to preview.
`sessionIds`	No	Optional TuneWorks session IDs to include.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	TuneWorks MCP tool name that produced this result.
`user`	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.
`preview`	No
`confirmationRequiredForSend`	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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'without sending email', which usefully confirms the no-side-effect guarantee, but it offers no further behavioral detail such as whether previews are stored, rate limits, or output contents.

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; the crucial 'without sending email' constraint lands at the end where it is still visible. Slightly list-like but efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values or argument formats. It covers purpose and the key non-mutating trait, leaving only minor usage routing implicit.

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?

The description enumerates the same five inputs the schema documents at 100% coverage, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Uses a clear verb ('Summarizes') and names the specific resources involved (vehicle, setups, sessions, recipients, message) plus the key qualifier 'without sending email', which separates it from send_share_build. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, but the distinction is inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'without sending email' implies the tool is the non-committal preview step, which a competent agent can map to 'call before send_share_build'. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_share_build_options, so guidance remains implied.

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?