Obtain a direct download link for a file in Seafile by providing its path, simplifying file retrieval and sharing.
Get a download URL for a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| repo_id | No | ||
| repo_token | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a download URL is returned, but says nothing about required tokens, URL expiry, permissions, or whether any side effects occur.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.
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 tool with six parameters, five of them auth/repository-related, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot infer which tokens are needed, how the repository context is resolved, or what kind of URL is produced.
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% and the description defines none of the six parameters. The required 'path' and the optional repo/token parameters are completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine how to populate them correctly.
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 concrete action ('get') and resource ('download URL for a file'), so an agent can infer the tool's core function. However, it does not distinguish this from related siblings such as read_file, get_file_detail, or create_share_link, so it stops short of a 5.
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 is given about when to use this tool rather than alternative file-access or sharing tools. The single sentence leaves tool selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.