pocketbase-mcp

Get file access token

get_file_token

Generate a short-lived access token for protected files. Append it as ?token=... to a file URL to gain access.

Instructions

Generate a short-lived file access token used to access protected files by appending it as a ?token=... query parameter to a file URL.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_file_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that the token is short-lived and must be used as a query parameter. Still, it does not mention authentication requirements, token expiration length, or any side effects, which would be valuable for a token-generating operation.

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 a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the core action ('Generate a short-lived file access token') and immediately provides the essential usage detail, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is generated, its lifespan characteristic, and how it should be attached to a URL. It does not explicitly describe the return value format or error conditions, but the lack of an output schema and zero parameters reduce the need for that detail.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms there is nothing to configure and instead focuses on how the generated token is consumed, which is appropriate for a no-input tool.

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 a specific verb 'Generate' and names the resource 'file access token', then explains its purpose by describing how it is used ('appending it as a ?token=... query parameter to a file URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file_url or download_file, which focus on URLs or file content rather than token issuance.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a short-lived token to access protected files. It also explains the exact usage pattern via query parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison.

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

Deploy Server