Bundle multiple URLs into one short link. QR codes, access counters, redirect lookup. Free.
Scored across 2 tools
bundle_urls creates a short link from multiple URLs, while get_bundle retrieves the contents of an existing short link. The create-versus-read split is unambiguous, and descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each.
Both names are snake_case and verb-first (bundle_urls, get_bundle), which is predictable. The object noun shifts between 'urls' and 'bundle', a minor inconsistency but still readable.
Two tools is thin even for a narrow URL-bundling service. A reasonable surface would likely include listing or deleting bundles, so this sits at the borderline.
Create and read are covered, but there is no update, delete, or list operation for existing bundles, so users cannot manage or enumerate their short links. This is the classic create+get gap.
Bundle multiple URLs into a single short link on UURL.at. Returns the short URL and QR code URLs (.svg and .png). Use this when you want to share multiple reference links as one URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | List of URLs to bundle (1-12 URLs, each must start with https:// or http://). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the action (bundle) and outputs (short URL, QR codes), but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. For a simple creation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and key returns; the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the action, return values, and usage context. It could mention expected response format or error cases, but the schema covers parameter constraints.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'urls' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 for high coverage. No extra value is provided.
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 tool's purpose: bundling multiple URLs into a single short link on UURL.at. It also lists the return values (short URL, QR code URLs) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_bundle'.
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 includes an explicit usage hint: 'Use this when you want to share multiple reference links as one URL.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or directly compare with alternatives beyond the sibling tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve the URLs and metadata from a UURL.at short link, including QR code URLs. Use this to inspect what URLs are behind a uurl.at link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rid | Yes | The 6-character short ID from the URL (e.g. 'Ab3cDe' from https://uurl.at/Ab3cDe). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It does add value by stating the inclusion of QR code URLs, but more behavioral details would improve transparency.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose and usage in minimal space.
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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately hints at the return type (URLs, metadata, QR codes). However, it does not specify the format or structure of the metadata, which could be important for an agent. The sibling tool is not contrasted, but overall the description is sufficient for a basic tool.
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 100% for the single parameter 'rid', which is well described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for this parameter; it only restates the tool's overall purpose. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed.
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 it retrieves URLs and metadata from a UURL.at short link, including QR code URLs. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'URLs and metadata' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from the sibling 'bundle_urls' (which likely creates bundles rather than inspecting them).
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 says to use this tool to inspect what URLs are behind a uurl.at link, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., bundle_urls might be used to create links instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
bundle_urlsget_bundleShort links you can re-point after printing the QR, with click analytics. Free QR, no key.
Create QR codes, re-point printed dynamic codes, name links on your domain, read scan analytics.
Short links with QR, custom domains and bot-free click analytics. Create, edit, delete, analyze.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
