get_share_linkFetch a share link by ID to obtain the exact URL for sharing a Paperless document.
Fetch a share link by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| share_link_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| created | Yes | ||
| document | Yes | ||
| share_url | No | ||
| expiration | No | ||
| file_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but it also does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single six-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read operation.
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 simple get-by-ID operation with an output schema and safety annotations already provided, the definition contains everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing material is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. The phrase 'by ID' merely restates the parameter name share_link_id rather than clarifying what a share link ID is or how it behaves, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'share link' along with the lookup key 'ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_share_links and the document-oriented get_* operations.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives are provided. The only implicit hint is 'by ID' versus list_share_links, but the description never states that this tool is for retrieving a single known share link or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.