list_share_linksList share links for documents, optionally filtering by document ID. Retrieve paginated share link records to manage or audit access.
List share links (optionally filtered by document).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| document_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | No | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| results | No | ||
| previous | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that filtering by document is possible, but does not disclose pagination behavior or response format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.
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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly mentions the optional filter. No wasted words.
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 tool is a simple list operation with no required parameters, and an output schema exists (though not shown), so the description needn't detail return values. However, given low schema coverage, the description could expand on parameter roles to achieve complete self-explanatoriness. It's acceptable for a simple tool but leaves some gaps.
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%, and the description only mentions 'document' filtering but does not explain any parameters in detail. It does not add meaning for 'page', 'page_size', or even clarify that 'document_id' is the filter parameter. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate.
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 'List share links' which is a specific verb and resource, and notes optional filtering by document. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_share_link, though the plural 'list' implies a collection operation.
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 implies when to use (to list share links, optionally filtered), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Since there is a get_share_link sibling, it would be helpful to mention that get_share_link is for a single link, but this is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.