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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have perfectly distinct purposes: bundle_urls creates a new bundle from multiple URLs, while get_bundle retrieves information about an existing bundle. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (bundle_urls, get_bundle) with clear action-object naming. The naming is predictable and follows the same convention throughout.
With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for a bundling service. While it covers creation and retrieval, typical URL management services would benefit from additional operations like listing bundles, updating, or deleting them. The scope is incomplete for practical use.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a URL bundling domain. It lacks essential operations such as listing existing bundles, updating bundle contents, deleting bundles, or managing bundle metadata. Agents will hit dead ends when trying to perform common lifecycle management tasks.
