Manage project sharing by adding, updating, or removing user access levels like CAN_VIEW or FULL_ACCESS using a project ID.
Add, update, or remove user sharing access for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remove | No | [{ user: { email } }] | |
| upsert | No | [{ user: { email }, access: 'CAN_EXPLORE'|'CAN_VIEW'|'CAN_EDIT'|'FULL_ACCESS' }] | |
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permission requirements, whether removal is reversible, how partial failures are handled, or whether 'upsert' overwrites existing access levels. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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 efficient sentence with the operations front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse for a three-parameter mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.
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?
Given a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 67% parameter coverage, the description omits permissions, idempotency/semantics of upsert, and behavior when remove and upsert target the same user. An agent lacks enough context to call it confidently.
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?
At 67% schema coverage, the schema mostly documents itself, and the description's 'add, update, or remove' wording loosely maps to upsert/remove. It adds nothing about the access enum values, the email identifier shape, or the role of projectId, so it doesn't meaningfully exceed the schema.
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 resource (user sharing access for a project) and enumerates the three operations (add, update, remove). It clearly separates this tool from siblings like hex-edit-project-sharing-groups, hex-edit-project-sharing-collections, and hex-edit-project-sharing-workspace.
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?
No guidance on when to use this over the groups/collections/workspace sharing variants, no prerequisites (e.g., required admin permissions), and no note about whether upsert and remove can be combined in one call. Usage is only inferable from the verb list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.