Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vish288

mcp-coda

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Coda Get Sharing Metadata

coda_get_sharing_metadata
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve sharing metadata for a Coda doc to check whether it can be shared or copied and if sharing restrictions apply; not the list of who has access.

Instructions

Get sharing metadata for a Coda doc.

Returns whether the doc can be shared, copied, or has sharing restrictions. This is metadata about the doc's sharing configuration, not the list of who has access — use coda_list_permissions for that.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesThe doc ID to get sharing metadata for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.4.14

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds useful substance by defining what the metadata actually contains (shareability, copyability, restrictions). It stops short of noting permission requirements or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return semantics, then the disambiguation. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what the call returns and what it does not. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (doc_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or origin, which is the correct baseline when structured data does the work.

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 ('Get sharing metadata for a Coda doc') and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming coda_list_permissions as the tool for access lists. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-not rule ('not the list of who has access') and routes to the correct alternative ('use coda_list_permissions for that'), which is exactly the confusion this tool name could create against its permissions siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools