mcp-resilland

create_report_share_link

Generate a 7-day public share link for a report. The URL requires no authentication, making it safe to share via email or chat.

Instructions

Mint a 7-day public share link for a report. The returned URL is readable without authentication — safe to paste into Slack, e-mail, or a chat. Returns {id, token, share_url, expires_at, download_count, is_expired}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "report_id": "<report_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_report_share_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`report_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: the link is public, auth-free, expires in 7 days, and returns specific fields. It does not mention permissions to create the link, but the core safety and expiration semantics are covered.

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 two sentences, directly states the action and key details, and lists the return fields. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description sufficiently covers purpose, key behavior, and return values. It also explicitly lists the output fields, which is useful even though an output schema exists. Minor missing context like prerequisites or side-effect details, but overall complete for the use case.

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?

The only parameter, report_id, is not explicitly described in the description beyond 'for a report'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description provides minimal compensation, but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the tool is simple. This is adequate but not enriched.

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 uses the specific verb 'Mint' and clearly states the resource: a 7-day public share link for a report. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_report and get_report_pdf_url, which retrieve or provide PDFs, not create share links.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly indicates this tool is for sharing reports via a public, auth-free link, suitable for pasting into Slack, email, or chat. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_report_pdf_url, but the use case is well implied.

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

Deploy Server