List all owned links with residency, protection, and published-artifact info, plus live-tunnel capacity and storage/transfer/publish usage. Owned links are unlimited by count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description 'List all owned links' depicts a non-destructive read operation, yet annotations set destructiveHint=true. The description provides no caveats to explain destructive behavior, and readOnlyHint=true makes the contradiction more acute. Per rubric this is an annotation contradiction.
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 front-loads the verb and resource, then packs relevant result categories. Every clause contributes; no filler.
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?
Without an output schema, the description enumerates key result facets and resource scope. It does not specify exact response format or pagination, but for a no-parameter listing tool this is reasonably complete. The destructive annotation inconsistency slightly undermines completeness but is already penalized in behavioral_transparency.
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 tool has zero parameters (schema is an empty object), so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all owned links'. It enumerates the returned dimensions (residency, protection, published-artifact info, live-tunnel capacity, storage/transfer/publish usage) and adds the count-limitation caveat. This clearly differentiates it from mutation siblings like protect_link and revoke_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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance appears. The phrase 'List all owned links' implies a read-only inventory use case, but the description does not tell the agent when to choose this over account_status or serve. This is usable but leaves routing to inference.
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 lifecycle tools (serve, stop_remote, protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link) are clearly distinct. The only ambiguity is between account_status and links, which both report usage, live tunnels, and owned-link counts, though one is an account-level summary and the other a detailed link listing.
Most tools follow a clear lowercase verb_noun pattern (protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link, stop_remote). The main inconsistency is that query tools are nouns (account_status, links) and serve is a bare verb, but the style remains readable and predictable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a serve-and-link-management server: one publish action, one unpublish action, four protection lifecycle operations, and two query/status tools. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
The set covers the full remote-link lifecycle: publish content, stop/unpublish it, list links, check account status, and protect/renew/revoke/unprotect access. No obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the stated purpose.
