Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
appforshare-mcp

appforshare-mcp

Official
by appforshare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Email the install link

email_build_link
Idempotent

Send a build's install link to up to five email addresses, skipping anyone who already received it. Ask recipients first, pass confirm true, and use testers for private projects.

Instructions

Email one build's install link to up to 5 addresses (one plain mail each, no tracking; an address that already got this build is skipped). Not for private projects: add testers there. Ask the person first and pass confirm: true. Developer role. Pro and Team.

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": {
      "build": "<build>",
      "emails": "<emails>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "email_build_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildYesBuild id or the slug of its install link
emailsYes
confirmYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag this as a non-readonly, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive action; the description adds real behavior: one plain mail per address, no tracking, and that addresses already sent this build are skipped, which explains the idempotentHint. It also discloses permission and plan requirements an agent cannot derive from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints, then eligibility; every clause carries information. The telegraphic fragments ('Developer role. Pro and Team.') are efficient but slightly clipped compared with full sentences.

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?

Covers scope, exclusions, consent, permissions, and delivery semantics for a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema. It stops short of saying what is returned (per-address success/failure) or what happens if an address is invalid, which is the main remaining gap.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates: it explains that 'build' is a build id or install-link slug, that 'emails' is capped at 5 (reinforcing maxItems), and that 'confirm' is a deliberate user-consent gate rather than a redundant boolean. It does not, however, describe email format validation or per-address failure behavior.

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 and resource ('Email one build's install link'), the scale limit (up to 5 addresses), and explicitly names the case it is not for (private projects – add testers there), so an agent can separate it from add_build_link and share_build_with_testers without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives when-not ('Not for private projects'), a social prerequisite ('Ask the person first'), a required flag ('pass confirm: true'), and eligibility constraints ('Developer role. Pro and Team'). The alternatives for the excluded case are named, not merely implied.

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