Lists shares created by the user, optionally filtered to a specific file or folder, and can include every nested share inside a folder when subfiles is enabled.
List shares made by the user: all, or of one path; with subfiles also every share inside a folder at any depth
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Only shares of this file/folder | |
| subfiles | No | With `path` on a folder: also shares of everything inside it, at any depth |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the recursive expansion behavior ('every share inside a folder at any depth'), which is the main behavioral risk, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, result size, or pagination.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the scope and the subfiles modifier both appear immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers both modes of operation and the recursive case adequately. The absence of annotations and an output schema leaves minor gaps around return shape, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the path/subfiles interaction almost verbatim, adding marginal clarity but no new meaning such as path format or default behavior.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('List shares') and scopes it to shares 'made by the user', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_shared_with_me. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the direction of the relationship.
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?
Usage is implied by the two modes it describes ('all, or of one path') and by the subfiles expansion, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named. The agent can infer intent but gets no routing help against list_shared_with_me or get_file_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.