Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

noticed

by so.noticed.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_sharing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect general-access and publication state for a List or View. This intentionally omits collaborator grants, invitations, and comments. Pass exactly one of list_id, list_name, view_id, or view_name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_sharing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idNoThe list id. Pass this OR list_name.
view_idNoThe View id. Pass this OR view_name.
list_nameNoThe list name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR list_id.
view_nameNoThe View name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR view_id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether noticed completed the operation.
dataNoThe operation result when ok is true.
errorNoA human-readable error when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "canonical_url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "effective_role": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "general_access": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "general_access_role": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "is_published": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "public_url": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/general_access_role"
+        },
+        "resource_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resource_type": {
+          "enum": [
+            "list",
+            "view"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "resource_id"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "A human-readable error when ok is false.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether noticed completed the operation.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by bounding the returned scope (what is deliberately omitted), which the annotations cannot convey. It doesn't discuss permissions or error behavior, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero redundancy, with the scope statement front-loaded and the selection rule last where it is most actionable. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Complexity is low, an output schema exists so return values need no prose, and the description covers purpose, scope exclusions, and the identifier selection rule. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not express: exactly one of the four identifiers must be supplied, and list/view selectors cannot be mixed. That resolves a genuine ambiguity left by the empty required list and absence of a oneOf.

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 ("Inspect") and a precisely scoped resource ("general-access and publication state for a List or View"). The wording also implicitly separates it from the mutation siblings set_general_access and set_published, so an agent can pick this for reading without opening a 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?

The second sentence gives an explicit exclusion set (collaborator grants, invitations, comments), which tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right choice. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that do cover those cases, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully closed.

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

All noticed toolsInspect
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