Revoke sharing for a previously shared session by providing its ID. Optionally target a specific project directory; defaults to the server's default project.
Unshare a previously shared session.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to existing share links, permission requirements, or reversibility. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 compact sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is front-loaded and readable, just too thin for the 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description does not supply enough context for an agent to invoke it confidently. It should at least state the precondition and effect of unsharing.
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%: 'directory' is documented in the schema, but 'id' is not described anywhere. The description adds no param meaning, and the required 'id' remains unexplained in both places.
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?
States a specific verb ('Unshare') and resource ('a previously shared session'), making the operation immediately clear. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never names the inverse tool opencode_session_share to anchor the pairing.
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 guidance on when to invoke this versus opencode_session_share or the other session-scoped tools, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., the session must currently be shared). The phrase 'previously shared' only loosely implies the precondition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.