Hustlin

Mint a tracked link

track_link

A short Hustlin link for one channel. Clicks are counted per channel, and the landing URL carries the visitor's tracking code (hlc) so a signup reported with report_conversion or the conversion snippet credits this channel. Approver or higher.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "track_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`medium`	No	utm_medium. Default social.
`stable`	No	Reuse the product's existing link for this channel instead of minting a new one, for bios and profiles where the URL must not change. Default false.
`channel`	Yes	Where the link will be posted, used as utm_source: x, linkedin, reddit, producthunt, newsletter, instagram_bio, a podcast name.
`content`	No	utm_content, to tell two links on the same channel apart (post vs bio).
`campaign`	No	utm_campaign. Default launch.
`productId`	Yes	The product id.
`destination`	No	Where the link sends people. Default: the product's funnel destination.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds real value beyond that: clicks are counted per channel, the landing URL embeds the visitor's hlc code so conversions credit this channel, and it states the 'Approver or higher' permission requirement. It does not describe the returned link or idempotency behavior, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core artifact is front-loaded before the tracking and permission details. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a full clause, a minor structural weakness, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, attribution mechanics, and the permission gate. The main gap is that it never says what is returned (presumably the short URL), which an agent would want since no output schema exists.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including utm mappings and the stable-link flag. The description adds only the framing that a link is scoped to one channel and carries the tracking code, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete artifact — a short tracked link scoped to one channel — and explains the tracking code (hlc) it carries, which separates it from siblings like conversion_snippet and report_conversion. The action verb is only implied by the title ('Mint'), so it falls just short of a fully self-contained verb+resource statement.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies the use case (per-channel links whose clicks and signups are attributed) and names report_conversion as the downstream consumer, which gives useful context. However, it never explicitly says when to mint a new link versus reuse one, nor does it point to alternatives such as conversion_snippet for agents deciding between tools.

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

All Hustlin tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.