renew_linkRegenerate the capability token for a protected link and reset its timer. Returns a new share URL; the previous one stops working. The regenerated viewer secret code is shown only in the serve console, never here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | Optional updated TTL duration (e.g. 24h, 7d). | |
| label | Yes | Label of the link to renew. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description proactively discloses important behavioral consequences: the previous share URL stops working and the regenerated viewer secret code is never shown here. Annotations only provide generic hints, so this contextual detail is valuable and not contradictory.
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?
Three concise sentences deliver the action, return value, side effect, and a security-relevant caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (new share URL) and the key side effect (old URL stops working). It could mention what happens when the label does not match an existing protected link, but that is a minor gap.
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 100%, so label and ttl are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that ttl updates the timer, which is already stated.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Regenerate the capability token for a protected link and reset its timer.' It also explains the key behavioral outcome—returns a new share URL and invalidates the previous one—which clearly separates this from sibling tools like protect_link or revoke_link.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when an existing protected link needs its token regenerated or its timer reset, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over protect_link or revoke_link. There are no exclusions or alternative routing cues, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct actions: account_status is account-level, links is inventory, serve/stop_remote are publish/unpublish, and the protection tools form a clear lifecycle. The only possible confusion is revoke_link versus unprotect_link, since both invalidate access in different ways, but the descriptions distinguish them well.
The link-mutation tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link. However, account_status and links are noun-only, serve is a bare verb, and stop_remote uses an inconsistent object, so the naming conventions are mixed.
Eight tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: account awareness, link inventory, publishing, unpublishing, and protection management. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feel redundant.
The core lifecycle is covered: publish via serve, unpublish via stop_remote, inventory via links, and full protection management via protect/renew/revoke/unprotect. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit update-to-existing-link operation, but agents can likely work around these.