ShareWatch

Report a Bug

report_bug

Tell the ShareWatch developers what this server got wrong. Use it for outright bugs — an unexpected error, a wrong result — and equally for friction: a confusing parameter, an unhelpful error message, a task that took three calls when it should have taken one. Your assessment of the API is the point; it is the only way its designers learn how it behaves in practice. The report is written to the user's own audit log, visible to them and to their workspace administrators, and to ShareWatch's operational logs. Write about the tool, never about the user's documents or conversation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	The tool that had the problem (e.g. 'update_document', 'read_file')
`file_id`	No	The file ID involved, if applicable
`description`	Yes	YOUR experience of using this tool — you are the one being asked, not the user. What you tried, what the API did instead, and what would have made it work. Opinions welcome: if a parameter is awkward, an error was unhelpful, two calls were needed where one should do, or the tool made a task harder than it should have been, say so plainly. Write about ShareWatch, not about the user's task: no document contents, no quoted text, no file or people names. Their material is not the subject and does not belong here. Maximum 2000 characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`where`	Yes	where the report went, so the agent can tell the user where to look for it
`logged`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses meaningful side effects not captured by the annotations: the report is written to the user's own audit log, visible to the user and workspace administrators, and to ShareWatch's operational logs. This clarifies that the tool is not read-only and has persistent visibility.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, rationale, side effects, and content constraints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though some guidance repeats what is already in the schema's parameter description.

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?

For a bug-reporting tool, the description covers what to report, how to report it, what not to include, and where the report goes. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, and the description gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'tool', 'file_id', and 'description' in detail. The description reinforces the 'description' parameter's intent but does not add essential parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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?

Purpose is explicit and actionable: 'Tell the ShareWatch developers what this server got wrong' names the verb, resource, and audience. It also distinguishes itself by covering both outright bugs and friction, which is broader than any sibling tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states when to use the tool: for outright bugs and for friction like confusing parameters or unhelpful errors. It gives content exclusions ('Write about the tool, never about the user's documents or conversation'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or a definitive 'do not use this for X' scenario.

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

All ShareWatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the detailed descriptions separate similar-sounding ones. A few pairs could still be confused: access_file_by_url vs request_file_access, and create_document vs format_document, but their trigger conditions are described clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g. create_document, update_spreadsheet, delete_file. Minor deviations like build_presentation instead of create_presentation, and format_document alongside create_document, break the pattern slightly but remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end of the scale, though the domain spans Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides, which justifies a large surface. Some consolidation is possible — access_file_by_url and request_file_access overlap, as do create_document and format_document — so the count feels slightly bloated rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core file lifecycle well: create, read, update, delete, move, list, search, upload, and access control across all major Google Workspace document types. Minor gaps exist, such as no rename, copy, export, or direct sharing tool, but agents can work around these without major failures.

Resources

Need Help?