get_shared_secretRetrieve an encrypted shared secret by providing its share token. Verifies the share is unexpired, unrevoked, and within read limits before returning the secret.
Retrieve a shared secret using a share token. No authentication required. The share must be non-expired, non-revoked, and within its read limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shareToken | Yes | The share token from a share link |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add meaningful behavioral context: it states an authentication requirement (none) and the validity conditions for a successful retrieval. It does not describe what happens on failure or whether retrieval consumes a read, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the essential facts with no filler, and the action plus the key constraint are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it gives the input source, auth context, and success conditions. Its only gap is lack of explicit failure/error behavior, which would be nice but not essential for this simple retrieval tool.
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?
The single parameter is already fully documented in the schema with the description 'The share token from a share link.' The tool description only restates the share-token concept without adding syntax, format, or additional semantic detail, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a shared secret using a share token.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_secret by emphasizing the share-token path and the no-authentication requirement.
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?
It establishes clear usage context by stating that no authentication is required and that the share must be non-expired, non-revoked, and within its read limit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.