sparkroom.revoke_share_linkRevoke the selected link after current-state confirmation. Other links and prior downloads are unaffected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_id | Yes | ||
| room_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| expected_version | Yes | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the effect is limited to the selected link, prior downloads remain valid, and a current-state confirmation is required. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the action, precondition, and scope of effects with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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 destructive and idempotent annotations, an output schema, and sibling tools such as list_share_links and create_share_link for context, the description covers the critical behavioral outcome and precondition. The main gap is parameter-level guidance, but the overall picture is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter. 'current-state confirmation' loosely hints at expected_version or confirmation_token, yet idempotency_key and the provenance of the token remain unexplained.
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 ('Revoke') and resource ('the selected link'), making it unambiguous that this tool invalidates one share link. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like sparkroom.create_share_link and sparkroom.list_share_links.
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 sets a clear precondition: revoke only after current-state confirmation. It also reassures about non-affected items ('Other links and prior downloads are unaffected'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.