Skip to main content
Glama

Share tour

share_tour
Idempotent

Makes a tour public (anyone with its link, never listed) or private, and optionally renames it. Ask the person first.

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": {
      "tour_id": "<tour_id>"
    },
    "name": "share_tour"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
publicNo
tour_idYesThe tour ID (12 hexadecimal characters) from create_tour or list_tours.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new semantics by defining exactly what 'public' means (link-accessible but never listed) and implying a confirmation requirement — context the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with zero filler; the primary effect (visibility change) is front-loaded before the optional rename and the confirmation note. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, side effect (rename), visibility semantics, and a confirmation nudge. The only real gap is the undefined behavior when 'public' is not supplied, and the absence of any pointer to the overlapping set_visibility sibling.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only tour_id is documented), so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that 'public' toggles link visibility while 'title' performs an optional rename. It does not clarify what happens if 'public' is omitted, which is the remaining ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (make a tour public/private, optionally rename) with a clear scope qualifier — 'anyone with its link, never listed'. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'set_visibility', which sounds like it covers overlapping ground, so an agent may hesitate between the two.

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?

'Ask the person first' gives real procedural guidance for a user-visible mutation, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling set_visibility, nor what happens if 'public' is omitted, leaving the main routing question to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.