Share an OpenCode session publicly by providing its ID so teammates and others can view the conversation. Optionally target a specific project directory.
Share a session publicly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Share publicly' discloses the visibility change, but it omits authentication requirements, reversibility, whether an existing share is replaced, and other side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation/visibility tool.
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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. However, for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the extreme brevity is under-specified rather than efficient, leaving important context unstated.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a required undocumented id parameter, the description leaves out critical context: what sharing entails, permission requirements, and how to undo it. It is minimally informative but incomplete.
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 50%: the optional directory parameter is documented in the schema, but the required id parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, so it does not compensate for the missing id 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 a specific verb (share) and resource (session) and adds the effect (publicly). It clearly distinguishes the tool from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name opencode_session_unshare or explain how sharing differs from other session lifecycle 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as opencode_session_unshare. The description gives no indication of authorization requirements or when sharing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.