Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_share_link

Generate a shareable link for a Penpot file with configurable comment and inspect permissions.

Instructions

Create a shareable link for a file

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "whoComment": "<whoComment>",
      "whoInspect": "<whoInspect>",
      "pages": "<pages>"
    },
    "name": "create_share_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pagesYesArray of page IDs to share (empty array for all pages)
fileIdYesFile ID
whoCommentYesWho can comment
whoInspectYesWho can inspect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('create') but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, link expiration, page scoping, or return format. The minimal detail leaves the agent with significant unknowns.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with every word earning its place. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simple action it conveys.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters, embedded enums, and no output schema or annotations, but the description explains nothing about permissions, page selection behavior, or returned link details. It is inadequate for the tool's complexity and leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with meaningful descriptions for each parameter (e.g., whoComment enum, pages array). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a shareable link for a file'), clearly conveying the action. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_share_link or create_file beyond the obvious 'link' focus, so it's clear but not explicitly distinguishing.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_share_link or other create tools. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions.

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