Skip to main content
Glama
googlarz

Proton Drive MCP

by googlarz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Create or update public link

drive_share_set_url
Destructive

Create or update a public Proton Drive share link for a file path with role, password, and expiration; anyone with the link can access it without a Proton account.

Instructions

Create or update a public share link: anyone with the link gets the given role, no Proton account needed. Calling again on the same path REPLACES the link's settings (same URL): omitting password/expiration removes them, and the result then carries a warning. Expiration is at most ~90 days out. Returns {url?, role?, expirationTime?, warning?}; fields may be absent. The password is passed as a CLI argument and is visible in the process list and shell history of the machine running this server. For private sharing use drive_share_invite. Requires confirmed=true after explicit user approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute remote Drive path to create a public link for (must start with '/').
roleNoAccess level for anyone with the link. Defaults to 'viewer' if omitted.
passwordNoOptional custom password required to access the link. Omit for no password.
confirmedNoMust be true; only after the user approved this exact action.
expirationNoOptional expiration date in ISO format, e.g. '2026-06-06'. Omit for no expiration.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirmed / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true. Only set after the user explicitly approved this exact action."New value: +"Must be true; only after the user approved this exact action."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.38
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true. Only set after the user explicitly approved this exact action.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Addedv1.0.28

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description independently justifies both: repeated calls replace link settings rather than no-op, and omitting password/expiration silently removes them, producing a warning. It also discloses the ~90-day expiration cap and the security exposure that the password is passed as a CLI argument visible in the process list and shell history — none of which the schema or annotations convey.

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?

Purpose and audience come first, then the replace/warning behavior, then constraints (expiration cap), then return shape, then the security caveat and approval gate. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no repetition of name or title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline ({url?, role?, expirationTime?, warning?}, fields may be absent), the mutation and replacement semantics, the confirmation gate, and the security caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by explaining semantics the schema cannot: the ~90-day expiration ceiling, the destructive meaning of omitting password/expiration on re-call, and the CLI-visibility risk of the password value. It stops short of spelling out the return-field shapes per parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create or update a public share link') and immediately defines the scope: anyone with the link, no Proton account needed. It also names the sibling it is not, drive_share_invite, so an agent can route between public-link and private-invite paths without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('anyone with the link', no account needed) and a named alternative for the other case ('For private sharing use drive_share_invite'). It further flags the re-invocation semantics (calling again REPLACES settings) and the confirmed=true approval prerequisite, which is exactly the kind of gating an agent needs before calling.

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