list_share_linksThe account's active share links, or one project's when id is given, each with page, embed and poster URLs and a view count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Only this project's links |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shares | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / properties / shares / items / properties / expiresAt / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / shares / items / properties / expiresAt / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / shares / items / properties / modelUrlAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "The GLB, for shares of generated meshes"
+}Output schema / properties / shares / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "token",
- "url",
- "embedUrl",
- "posterUrl",
- "videoUrl",
- "oembedUrl",
- "embedHtml",
- "kind",
- "title",
- "visibility",
- "status",
- "expiresAt",
- "allowDownload",
- "embedEnabled",
- "viewCount",
- "projectId",
- "createdAt"
-]New value: +[
+ "token",
+ "url",
+ "embedUrl",
+ "posterUrl",
+ "videoUrl",
+ "modelUrl",
+ "oembedUrl",
+ "embedHtml",
+ "kind",
+ "title",
+ "visibility",
+ "status",
+ "expiresAt",
+ "allowDownload",
+ "embedEnabled",
+ "viewCount",
+ "projectId",
+ "createdAt"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that only active links are listed and what each link entry contains. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary behavior, then appends the optional scope modifier and return contents. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple list operation with one optional parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers scope, filtering behavior, and return contents. Nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter already has a description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the default behavior (account-wide) versus the id-based behavior (one project's links), which complements the schema.
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 clearly states the verb (list), the resource (share links), the scope (account-wide or project-specific), and the returned data (page, embed, poster URLs, view count). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like create_share_link and revoke_share_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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: without an id for all account share links, with an id for one project's links. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
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 resources, but several overlapping pairs exist: search/list_projects both find projects by title, fetch/get_project both return project details, and upload_logo_image/request_logo_image_upload are two upload paths. The descriptions help clarify boundaries, but an agent could still misselect.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_). Minor deviations like bare 'fetch' and 'search', plus the mixed '3d' in generate_3d_model vs '3D' in descriptions, keep it from being perfectly consistent.
At 31 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where agent tool selection becomes cognitively heavy. While the server covers a broad platform, several tools are near-redundant and could be consolidated, making the count feel inflated.
The surface covers project lifecycle, sharing/publishing, AI generation, uploads, materials, and account/plan management quite thoroughly. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct create_coin_project tool and no deletion for generation runs, but these are workable.