Charming

list_app_shares

Read-only

Use this to see who an app is shared with: lists every outstanding invitation and active grant, labeled by status (pending = invited, no access yet; accepted = active grantee; invited = email-only invite, no Charming account yet) and by role (collaborator = read + write; end-user = run + write data, not edit source; viewer = read only).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app_id`	Yes	The app ID (UUID) to list shares for

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Indicates success. Errors arrive as content with isError:true.
`shares`	Yes	Every outstanding invitation and active grant on the app.
`advisories`	No	Structured non-fatal advisories, including authoring issues and unread staff feedback responses. Each advisory.summary is also appended to the text content for the LLM path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / advisories

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Structured non-fatal advisories, including authoring issues and unread staff feedback responses. Each advisory.summary is also appended to the text content for the LLM path.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "data": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "description": "Kind-specific structured payload. Shape varies per advisory kind.",
+        "propertyNames": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "doc_url": {
+        "description": "Optional docs pointer for this advisory kind.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "description": "Stable advisory identifier (e.g. \"legacy-bridge\").",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "severity": {
+        "description": "Severity; omitted advisories are treated as 'info'.",
+        "enum": [
+          "info",
+          "warn"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "summary": {
+        "description": "Agent-facing summary. Self-sufficient; no extra context required.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "userSummary": {
+        "description": "End-user-facing summary. Set when the advisory should render in-app.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "summary"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / shares / items / properties / accepted_at / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / shares / items / properties / accepted_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedJul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by defining the three status values and three role semantics, which materially shapes expectations about what the tool returns. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that helps an agent interpret output correctly.

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?

Every clause earns its place: it gives the tool's purpose and then compactly explains each status and role value, all in one sentence without repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read-only listing tool with a single UUID parameter, the description fully covers the operation, the return categories, and the meaning of each label. The output schema would provide the structural details, so no major information gap exists.

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 app_id is adequately documented as a UUID in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but it doesn't need to; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('see who an app is shared with') and a specific resource (an app's shares), then details exactly what is listed. The status and role labels make the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like get_app or share/unshare operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Opens with 'Use this to see who an app is shared with', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it without confusion.

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

All Charming 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.