hex-mcp-server

hex-create-presigned-url

Generate a presigned URL to embed a Hex project in an iframe, with configurable permissions and expiration for controlled access.

Instructions

Create an embedded URL for a project (for iframe embedding).

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "hex-create-presigned-url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Permissions: EXPORT_PDF, EXPORT_CSV
`expiresIn`	No	Expiration in ms (default 15000, max 300000)
`projectId`	Yes
`inputParameters`	No	Default input parameter values
`hexUserAttributes`	No	Attributes for the running user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses almost nothing behavioral: it does not state that the URL is time-limited (schema default 15000ms), that the scope controls export permissions, or that the URL grants access without normal auth. For a security-sensitive URL-minting tool this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and an immediately useful clarifier in parentheses. Nothing wasted, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification.

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?

A 5-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a single sentence. Nothing explains the security semantics of the generated URL or how the optional scope/expiresIn affect the result, leaving the agent reliant entirely on the schema.

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 80%, so parameters such as scope, expiresIn, and inputParameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Create an embedded URL for a project'. The parenthetical clarifies the artifact type (iframe embedding). No sibling tool produces a presigned/embedded URL, so differentiation is effectively established by the unique resource, though it isn't stated explicitly.

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?

The only usage hint is the parenthetical 'for iframe embedding'. There is no guidance on when to call this versus e.g. hex-get-project or hex-export-project, no prerequisites, and no mention of the token's short-lived nature affecting call timing.

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

Deploy Server