mazarbul

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

shareToTeam

Shares a personal-scope entity, fact, or relation to team scope for admitted members to read, optionally including an entity's open facts and active relations.

Instructions

Re-publish a personal-scope record (entity, fact, or relation) to the team scope so all admitted team members can read it. The personal original is unchanged — both copies coexist as separate scope lenses. Requires admitted team membership (else E_PERMISSION). Entities are deduplicated against the team scope by exact name before minting; an existing match returns status=reused. Facts and relations remap their endpoint UIDs to the team-scope counterparts: for a bare fact/relation share, all referenced entities must already be in team scope (else E_VALIDATION); for a subtree share (withFacts/withRelations), relations whose object has no team counterpart are skipped (status=skipped, reason set) rather than appended with dangling references. Use withFacts/withRelations to share an entity subtree in one call.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	Yes	The record to share. Accepts an AIP resource name (entities/{uid}, facts/{uid}, relations/{uid}) or a bare ULID (treated as entity). Entity names are resolved case-insensitively when not a uid.
`withFacts`	No	Also share the entity's currently-open facts. Only meaningful when ref resolves to an entity. Defaults to false.
`withRelations`	No	Also share the entity's active relations. Only meaningful when ref resolves to an entity. Defaults to false.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`shared`	Yes	Per-item share outcomes.
`status`	Yes	Always "shared" on success.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the permission requirement (E_PERMISSION), the unchanged-original / coexisting-scope semantics, deduplication-by-name with status=reused, and skip-vs-fail behavior with status=skipped and E_VALIDATION. That is a richer behavioral profile than most read/write tools in this set provide.

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 purpose and the scope-coexistence constraint come first, followed by prerequisites, dedup behavior, and remap/skip semantics, then the usage hint. Every sentence contributes a distinct rule; nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still documents the status vocabulary (reused, skipped) and error codes. For a 3-parameter mutation with no annotations, this is complete enough to call correctly without experimentation.

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; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that withFacts/withRelations trigger endpoint UID remapping and that dangling relations are skipped rather than appended for subtree shares. The ref parameter's AIP-name vs bare-ULID behavior is left to the schema, so it is not 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 ('Re-publish a personal-scope record ... to the team scope') and enumerates the entity/fact/relation kinds it applies to. It is clearly distinguishable from the many personal-scope siblings like remember, relate, and createEntity.

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?

Clearly names the subtree-share case ('Use withFacts/withRelations to share an entity subtree in one call') and states the membership prerequisite. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases where sharing is not appropriate, so it lands just below the top band.

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