Generate a public share link for any file or folder in non-encrypted libraries, enabling easy sharing with configurable permissions, expiry, and password.
Create a public share link for a file/folder (non-encrypted libraries only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| repo_id | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| expire_days | No | ||
| permissions | No | ||
| library_name | No | ||
| account_token | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the non-encrypted library restriction; it does not mention authentication needs, link lifetime, side effects, or expected outcomes.
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?
One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing operational guidance.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It leaves the agent to guess path format, optional sharing settings, token requirements, and response/error behavior.
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 0% for 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the implied file/folder path. password, expire_days, permissions, repo_id, library_name, and both token parameters are entirely unexplained.
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 specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('public share link'), and a scoping restriction ('non-encrypted libraries only'). An agent can immediately distinguish it from list_share_links or get_download_link.
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?
Provides clear context: use it for files/folders and only for non-encrypted libraries. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_download_link or list_share_links or give conditions for preferring them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.