Lists all public share links for a Collective, showing scope, token, edit access, and password status for each share.
List all public share links on a Collective, including per-page shares. Each entry reports its scope ("collective" or "page"), token, whether visitors can edit, and whether a password is set. Passwords themselves are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collectiveId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable detail about the returned fields (scope, token, edit permission, password flag) and explicitly states that passwords are never returned, which is important security context not captured in the schema.
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 two sentences with no redundant information. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the details about the returned fields are presented compactly without fluff.
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?
The description explains what the tool returns (each entry's scope, token, edit permission, password flag) and highlights the security aspect of not returning passwords. For a simple list operation with one parameter, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though pagination or result limits are not mentioned.
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 input schema has a single required parameter, collectiveId (integer), with no description in the schema and 0% coverage in the tool description. The description does not explain the parameter, relying on its name to convey meaning. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.
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 action ('List all public share links') on a specific resource ('Collective') and distinguishes between collective-level and per-page shares. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like create_collective_share, update_share, and delete_share, which handle mutations.
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?
The description gives a clear context (listing shares) but does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of other share-related tools. It doesn't state any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this is the read operation among the share tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.