get_share_linkRetrieves a project's branded read-only client progress page link and view count, enabling sharing of submission progress with clients.
The project's client page link (a read-only progress page in the agency's brand), with its views.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project id (prj_...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the returned artifact (a read-only, agency-branded client-facing progress page) and that view data accompanies it, though it omits whether view counts are totals or a breakdown.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the resource, though the phrasing is clipped to the point of reading as a label rather than a statement of action.
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?
A simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, so not much is required. However, with no output schema, the description should clarify what "with its views" returns (a URL plus a count? a list of view records?); that ambiguity is left unresolved.
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?
Only one parameter, project_id, and schema description coverage is 100% with a clear pattern constraint, so the schema carries the burden. The description never mentions the parameter, but nothing about its meaning is left ambiguous either.
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 names the resource ("the project's client page link") and hints at a payload ("with its views"), so an agent can infer this retrieves a share link. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from create_share_link or delete_share_link, which is the key disambiguation for a CRUD-lite trio.
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, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. It does not say whether a link must already exist or what happens when none does, nor does it route an agent between this and the sibling create_share_link/delete_share_link tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.