get_version_share_linkGet the current share URL for a specific saved version by providing project and version IDs. Disabled shares return no URL.
Read the durable sharing state and current URL for one exact saved version. Disabled shares return no URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| version_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the fact that disabled shares return no URL and the notion of 'durable sharing state.' This provides additional behavioral clarity without contradicting any annotations.
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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words; every phrase adds meaning.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with good annotations and a meaningful sibling set, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main return value (URL) and an edge case (disabled shares). However, the lack of any mention of the 'page' parameter and the absence of an output schema prevent a perfect score.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'one exact saved version' implicitly mapping to version_id and project_id. The optional 'page' parameter is left completely unexplained, which is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.
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 states a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('durable sharing state and current URL for one exact saved version'), making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_version_share_link and revoke_version_share_link by focusing on retrieval.
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 use of 'Read' clearly implies this is for retrieving an existing share link rather than creating or revoking one, which is reinforced by sibling tool names. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context provides sufficient guidance for an agent to know when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.