Update a Hex project's sharing settings to control workspace member access or public web visibility. Specify project ID and permissions to manage collaboration securely.
Update workspace or public-web sharing settings for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| publicWeb | No | { enabled: boolean } | |
| workspace | No | { members: 'CAN_VIEW'|'CAN_EXPLORE'|'NONE' } |
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 the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'update'. It does not disclose that this is a mutation that can revoke access, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to unspecified settings.
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 tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits required permissions, the effect of access levels, and the relationship to the sibling sharing tools. An agent cannot confidently invoke it from this text alone.
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 coverage is 67% and the description merely echoes the parameter names ('workspace', 'public-web'), adding no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the CAN_VIEW/CAN_EXPLORE/NONE levels or the publicWeb enabled flag, and projectId is undocumented in both places.
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?
States a clear verb+resource: updating sharing settings for a project, scoped to workspace and public-web. It partially distinguishes itself from the sibling sharing tools (hex-edit-project-sharing-collections/groups/users), but never names them, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 versus the three sibling sharing tools for collections, groups, and users. There is also no mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin/owner rights) or what selecting 'NONE' does, leaving the agent to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.