Box MCP Server

box_shared_link_folder_create_or_update_tool

Create or update a shared link for a Box folder, setting access level, expiration, password, and permissions to control how others view or edit its contents.

Instructions

Create or update a shared link for a folder.

Args: ctx (Context): The context object containing the request and lifespan context. folder_id (str): The ID of the folder to create or update the shared link for. access (str, optional): The access level for the shared link. Defaults to None. unshared_at (str, optional): The expiration date for the shared link. Defaults to None. password (str, optional): The password for the shared link. Defaults to None. permissions (dict, optional): The permissions for the shared link. Defaults to None.

Returns: dict: The response from the Box API after creating or updating the shared link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>"
    },
    "name": "box_shared_link_folder_create_or_update_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`access`	No	company
`can_edit`	No
`password`	No
`folder_id`	Yes
`can_preview`	No
`unshared_at`	No
`vanity_name`	No
`can_download`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'creates or updates' a shared link, implying mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing links, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or error conditions. The return value is vaguely described as 'The response from the Box API,' which doesn't help the agent understand success/failure outcomes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, but the Args/Returns sections are verbose yet incomplete. The structure includes redundant information (e.g., 'Defaults to None' for each optional param) without adding value, and the return statement is overly generic. It could be more concise by eliminating boilerplate and focusing on essential guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover half the parameters, omits behavioral context like idempotency or error handling, and provides vague return info. For a tool that modifies shared links—a sensitive operation—this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it safely and effectively.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 5 parameters (folder_id, access, unshared_at, password, permissions) with minimal context (e.g., 'optional', defaults). However, the input schema has 8 parameters, missing can_download, can_preview, can_edit, and vanity_name entirely. The description fails to explain parameter meanings (e.g., what 'access' values are valid, what 'permissions' dict contains), leaving most parameters undocumented or poorly defined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('create or update') and resource ('shared link for a folder'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from other shared link tools (e.g., box_shared_link_file_create_or_update_tool) by specifying it's for folders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from box_shared_link_folder_get_tool or box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool in terms of purpose, so it's not a perfect 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for shared links (create/update, get, remove for files, folders, and web links), there's no indication of prerequisites, when to choose this over box_shared_link_folder_get_tool for existing links, or how it interacts with other folder tools like box_folder_set_collaboration_tool. The absence of usage context leaves the agent to guess.

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

Deploy Server