Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fulcradynamics

Fulcra MCP Server

by fulcradynamics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Delete Share

delete_share
Destructive

End a share by deleting an outgoing share to revoke every recipient's access, or give up an incoming share so the owner can share again. Group-based shares require leaving the group.

Instructions

End a share: delete one this user made, revoking every recipient's access, or give up one another user shares with this user (they can share again).

A share that reaches this user through a group can't be given up on its own; leave the group instead (leave_group).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
share_idYesFrom list_shares: an outgoing share's "datashare_id", or an incoming share's "grant_id".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / share_id / description
      Previous value: -"The \"datashare_id\" from `list_shares(direction=\"outgoing\")`."New value: +"From list_shares: an outgoing share's \"datashare_id\", or an\nincoming share's \"grant_id\"."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, including that deleting an outgoing share revokes every recipient's access and that a group-based incoming share cannot be given up individually. It could say more about permanence or whether recipients are notified, but its extra context is meaningful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence carries operational meaning, and the parenthetical alternative is placed immediately after the relevant limitation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral consequences and the main usage alternative. No output schema exists, so there is no need to describe return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already fully documented as coming from list_shares, with datashare_id for outgoing shares and grant_id for incoming shares. The description complements this by explaining the outgoing/incoming distinction, but it does not add parameter-level syntax beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'End a share'. It then clearly distinguishes the two supported operations: deleting an outgoing share versus giving up an incoming share. This lets an agent understand the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly explains when to use each mode: delete a share this user made, or give up a share another user shares with this user. It also names an exclusion and alternative for group-based shares: 'leave the group instead (leave_group)'. This is strong routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools