Skip to main content
Glama
SAIHM-Admin

@saihm/mcp-server-pro

Official
by SAIHM-Admin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Share

saihm_share

Grant one other agent access to a single memory cell, named by cellId. Identify the recipient by their recipientPinnedAgentIdHashHex, pinned out-of-band, and their recipientRecord. Set scope to 'read', 'write' or 'readwrite'.

Instructions

Grant one other agent access to a single memory cell, named by cellId. Identify the recipient by their recipientPinnedAgentIdHashHex, pinned out-of-band, and their recipientRecord. Set scope to 'read', 'write' or 'readwrite'. Only that one cell is exposed, and sharing re-wraps its key rather than copying the memory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoAccess scope (blank = read)
cellIdYesThe cell to share
expiryEpochNoOptional expiry in whole HOURS since the UNIX epoch (decimal string), not seconds: floor(unix_ms / 3600000). Example: "498192" is 2026-11-01 00:00 UTC. Blank = no expiry
recipientRecordYesThe grantee's published identity record (hex fields)
recipientPinnedAgentIdHashHexYesThe grantee's agentIdHash (hex), pinned out-of-band

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.14.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / expiryEpoch / description
      Previous value: -"Optional expiry as a UNIX-epoch count (decimal string)"New value: +"Optional expiry in whole HOURS since the UNIX epoch (decimal string), not seconds: floor(unix_ms / 3600000). Example: \"498192\" is 2026-11-01 00:00 UTC. Blank = no expiry"
    • changedInput schema / properties / expiryEpoch / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[0-9]+$"New value: +"^$|^[0-9]+$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Access scope (default read)"New value: +"Access scope (blank = read)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "read",
-  "write",
-  "readwrite"
-]New value: +[
+  "",
+  "read",
+  "write",
+  "readwrite"
+]
  2. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: sharing re-wraps the cell key rather than copying the memory, and exposure is limited to exactly one cell. It does not explain why the operation is non-idempotent or what happens on repeat shares, so it is not a 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then recipient identification, then scope, then the exposure/key-wrap caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with a nested recipient object and no output schema, the description covers the security model and exposure limits well. It omits success/failure behavior, permission requirements on the caller, and any mention of expiryEpoch, which the schema carries but the narrative does not.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the tricky expiryEpoch hour-encoding. The description restates cellId, the scope values, and the out-of-band pinning requirement, adding intent but little syntax or format detail beyond the schema; expiryEpoch is not mentioned at all. 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?

Specific verb (grant access) plus specific resource (a single memory cell named by cellId), with the granting counterpart to sibling saihm_revoke_share implicit in the wording. The scope guarantee ('Only that one cell is exposed') further sharpens what the tool is and is not.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it when you want to give one other agent access to one cell, and the recipient must already be pinned out-of-band. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no sibling is named as an alternative or complement, leaving routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools