Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

Storage Publish

storage_publish

Publish a Storage object and return a presigned bucket GET URL.

Idempotent: returns the existing token if already published. Does not re-upload bytes (they already live in the bucket). Agents should use signed_url (TTL TEAMSHARED_STORAGE_SIGNED_URL_TTL_SECONDS, default 3600s) plus signed_url_expires_in / signed_url_expires_at. share_url / public_url remain the durable /d/{share_token} fallback for console/humans — not /s/{slug} (shared-file HTML). Fails closed if the object-storage bucket is unconfigured (cannot mint a signed URL).

Agent seats (org tsk_ / agent_run) are refused — call request_gated_approval(gate="publish") instead. Console humans (ts_session) still publish. After the approval child is done, a human seat calls this tool (same completion path as file_publish). drive_publish is a deprecated alias of this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesStorage object UUID to publish

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: idempotency, no re-upload of bytes, returning the existing token when already published, failing closed when the bucket is unconfigured, and refusing agent seats. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the name and schema.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core outcome and then adds dense but relevant operational details. Each sentence earns its place: idempotency, URL semantics, failure mode, seat restrictions, and the deprecated alias. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the one-parameter schema, no annotations, and an output schema that already covers return values, the description is remarkably complete. It covers authentication/seat constraints, failure behavior, URL semantics, idempotency, and sibling routing. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly in the right circumstances.

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%, and the file_id property is already described as 'Storage object UUID to publish.' The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Publish a Storage object and return a presigned bucket GET URL.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools by noting the deprecated drive_publish alias and by clarifying that this is not the /s/{slug} shared-file path. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit routing guidance: agent seats should call request_gated_approval(gate="publish") instead, console humans may publish directly, and drive_publish is a deprecated alias. It also explains which URL fields to prefer and which fallback to use, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool.

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

All TeamShared toolsInspect
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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.

Resources