Bisque Presentations

Share an Artifact

share_artifact

Idempotent

Set who can open an Artifact you own. audience picks the rule; share_with is the complete list of named people (it replaces the previous list; omit it to keep the current one). Going public deletes every comment thread, so a public change on an Artifact with threads is refused unless delete_threads is true. Returns the URL to send.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`listed`	No	Show it in listings (the org library, public discovery) rather than link-only. Default false.
`audience`	Yes	Who can open the link. owner: only you. users: the people in share_with. public: anyone with the link.
`share_with`	No	People to grant access by email (or uid), with a role. [{ "email": "ana@acme.com", "role": "viewer" }]. viewer opens it; editor can also publish new content. Implies audience "users" when audience is omitted.
`artifact_id`	Yes	The Artifact id (art_…).
`delete_threads`	No	Allow going public on an Artifact that has comment threads, deleting them.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`grants`	Yes
`artifact_id`	Yes
`audience_mode`	Yes
`discoverability`	Yes
`public_sharing_allowed`	No
`external_sharing_allowed`	No

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Going public deletes every comment thread' and that the change is refused unless delete_threads is true, which is a destructive side effect. The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, directly contradicting the description. This is an annotation contradiction.

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?

Three dense sentences, no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, the replacement semantics and destructive caveat follow, and the return value is stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the key operational details: ownership, audience selection, share_with replacement, the public/threads safety rule, and the returned URL. It is nearly complete, but the contradiction between the description and the destructiveHint annotation leaves the tool definition slightly unreliable overall.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds important semantics beyond the schema: share_with replaces the previous list and can be omitted to keep it, and delete_threads is required for a public change when threads exist. It also notes the returned URL.

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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Set who can open an Artifact you own.' This clearly identifies the tool's access-control role and distinguishes it from create/update/delete artifact siblings.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call the tool (changing who can open an artifact you own) and explains audience/share_with/delete_threads semantics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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

All Bisque Presentations 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear resource families (artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, channels) and descriptions explicitly redirect between create_artifact and create_presentation. The main potential confusion is create_presentation vs publish_narrated_presentation, since both produce presentations but differ in narration source; the descriptions do clarify this.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case verb_noun naming with consistent families like get_artifact, get_artifact_thread, and get_presentation_spec. publish_narrated_presentation is longer but still follows the verb_noun pattern, and there are no mixed casing styles or erratic naming conventions.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by four clear subdomains: artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, and channels. No tools are redundant, though the set is large enough to feel slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

Artifacts have full CRUD plus sharing, and threads have create/read/list/reply/resolve. Presentations cover authoring spec, creation/publishing, status, analytics, and reading context, but there is no delete or explicit update endpoint for presentations and no exposed way to fetch mentionables; these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.

Resources

Need Help?