Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proton Suite Agent

Proton Suite Agent

by Soluciones-Alexendros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Share a Proton Drive path

proton_drive_share
Destructive

Invites a Proton user by email to collaborate on a specified Proton Drive remote path, enabling shared access to files and folders through the proton-drive CLI.

Instructions

Invites a Proton user to collaborate on a remote path using the proton-drive CLI.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "remote_path": "<remote_path>",
      "user_email": "<user_email>"
    },
    "name": "proton_drive_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_emailYesEmail of the user to invite.
remote_pathYesRemote Proton Drive path to share.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
  2. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what permission level the invite grants (read-only vs read-write), whether the invite requires acceptance, what happens if the user already has access, or whether re-invoking creates a duplicate invite — critical for a non-idempotent, destructive, externally-visible operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, zero filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, open-world, non-idempotent sharing operation with no output schema, the description omits the essentials an agent would need: granted permission level, side effects on existing shares, and any indication of the result (e.g. invite sent, link created).

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including an email pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'remote path' and 'Proton user' at a high level, adding no new meaning such as whether the path must be a folder versus a file.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb+resource: invites a Proton user to collaborate on a remote path. No sibling tool shares/invites, so the action is unambiguous, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from the other proton_drive_* tools (upload/move/copy/create_folder) that also target remote paths.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other drive tools, no prerequisites (must the path exist? must the caller be the owner?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything about applicability.

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