Skip to main content
Glama

Share a website by email

share_service
Destructive

Share a website with specific people by email, whether it is private or password-protected — sharing does not change who else can reach it. Each address is mailed a link from Valet that opens the site; the recipient needs no Valet account of their own, only the link, so anyone holding the email can open the site and forwarding it forwards access. Only websites can be shared by email so far; an app is refused. Sharing again with an address that already has access re-sends the same link rather than creating a second one. Requires connecting a Valet account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoThe kind you mean. Omit to share whatever the name holds; give it to have a name holding another kind refused. Only a website can be shared by email so far.
nameYesRequired. The website's name.
emailsYesRequired. The email addresses to share the site with, at most 10 at a time. Sharing again with an address that already has access re-sends the same link rather than creating a second one.
messageNoAn optional note included in the email, shown to the recipient as a quote beside the link. At most 500 characters.
org_nameNoThe Valet organization the site belongs to. Omit to use the organization the account joined first.
access_ttlNoHow long the first open starts access for, after which the link stops working, such as 30m or 7d (units: s, m, h, d). Omit for access that never expires this way. Composes with expires_in: the unopened deadline governs until the first open replaces it.
expires_inNoHow long from now the link works if nobody has opened it yet, such as 24h or 7d (units: s, m, h, d). Omit for a link that never expires this way.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the auth prerequisite (requires connecting a Valet account), that recipients need no Valet account, that anyone holding the email gains access and forwarding propagates it (the irreversible access-grant implicit in destructiveHint=true), and that re-sharing an existing address re-sends rather than duplicates. It also states the refusal condition for apps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph reads efficiently, but the re-send rule and the sites-only restriction are restated from the input schema, so a couple of sentences do not fully earn their place.

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 7-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, it covers the material concerns: auth requirement, access permanence, idempotency behavior, and the app-refusal error case. Only the response shape and any rate/error specifics are left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the email cap and the re-send behavior. The description mostly echoes that content and adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (share a website) and the mechanism (by email), with the scope constraint that sharing does not alter other visitors' access. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like publish_site, set_service_access, and unshare_service without opening any schema.

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?

It establishes clear context: use this to grant specific people email-based access, only for sites, resends the same link on repeat calls. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. publish_site for public access, unshare_service to revoke, set_service_access for broader access), so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names alone.

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.

Resources