Screen Share — Share your screen with anyone. No download, no account needed.. Runs in the browser. Covered by signup welcome credits and by the Day Pass (24-hour unlimited on this workspace group). All three credit-based workspaces unlock with the same one-time credit pack — there is no per-workspace subscription. See mioffice.ai/pricing for current plans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool runs in the browser and requires no account, but it does not disclose what happens during or after sharing (e.g., if a link or session is generated, whether real-time interaction occurs, or any privacy implications). The description focuses on marketing and pricing rather than 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the pricing section is verbose and largely redundant given the concluding pointer to mioffice.ai/pricing. Several sentences could be condensed without losing essential information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain expected outcomes and usage context. It fails to state what the user or agent gets after invoking the tool (e.g., a share link, a session ID), nor does it clarify how it relates to sibling tools like mio_p2p_session_handoff. The description is adequate for marketing but incomplete for agent decision-making.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. There is no need for parameter-level explanation, and the description adds no redundant parameter details.
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 'Share your screen with anyone' with a specific verb and resource, making the primary function evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling p2p tools like mio_p2p_file_transfer or mio_p2p_session_handoff, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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 implies usage context via 'No download, no account needed.. Runs in the browser,' suggesting a low-friction, immediate screen sharing scenario. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons with related p2p 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.
