Search and read Linkbreakers docs, pricing and QR code templates. Read-only, no auth.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_docs discovers content, get_article reads a full article by slug, and get_pricing returns plan/pricing details. There is no functional overlap that would cause misselection.
All three tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (get_article, get_pricing, search_docs). The convention is predictable and readable throughout.
Three tools is on the low end but each earns its place for a documentation-lookup server. It is slightly thin, as a browse/list capability is absent, but not mismatched to scope.
Search, full-article retrieval, and pricing cover the main documentation workflows with no dead ends. A minor gap exists in not having an index/list tool to enumerate articles, though search largely compensates.
Return the full Markdown of a Linkbreakers help center article by slug (the last segment of https://linkbreakers.com/help/article/).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the otherwise unavailable return format ("full Markdown"), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing slug or article size limits, so it is not fully complete.
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 sentence that front-loads the return value, tool resource, and lookup key with zero filler. Every clause 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?
For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a description covering return format and slug derivation, this is nearly complete. It omits only edge-case behavior (unknown slug, large articles), which is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning by explaining that the slug is the last segment of the help-article URL — useful derivation info the schema ("Article slug") does not provide. It does not restate the pattern/length constraints already in the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Return the full Markdown of a Linkbreakers help center article") and specifies the lookup key (slug), so an agent knows exactly what this does. It stops short of contrasting itself with siblings like search_docs, leaving the read-one-vs-search-many distinction implicit.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for fetching a known article, and the URL hint suggests you already have a specific slug in hand. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of search_docs as the alternative when the slug is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the current Linkbreakers plans with prices in USD per month, plan limits, signup links, how to reach sales for Enterprise, and the features included in every plan with the help article that explains each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| billing_cycle | No | Billing cycle to price the plans with. Omit to get both. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful substance: prices are quoted in USD per month, signup links are included, and Enterprise is handled via a sales contact rather than self-serve. It does not mention caching/refresh behavior or whether pricing data is static, but the added context is real.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary payload (plans and prices), then progressively adding secondary detail. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload and does so exhaustively — prices, limits, signup links, sales contact, features, and their help articles. An agent knows exactly what it will receive before calling.
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% and the single enum parameter (billing_cycle) is documented there, including 'Omit to get both.' The description adds no syntax or behavior beyond that; if anything, its 'prices in USD per month' phrasing slightly understates the yearly option the schema exposes. Baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Return) and enumerates the exact resource payload: plans, USD monthly prices, plan limits, signup links, Enterprise sales contact, and per-plan features with linked help articles. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools get_article and search_docs, which retrieve documentation rather than structured pricing.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool's subject matter (pricing/plans) makes it obvious when to reach for it instead of get_article or search_docs, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or names an alternative. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the Linkbreakers help center, guides, integrations and product news, or the public QR code design templates. Returns ranked results with their URL, Markdown URL and a snippet; read a help article in full with get_article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results | |
| query | Yes | Natural language question or keywords | |
| source | No | help searches help center articles; qr_templates searches public QR code design templates | help |
| category | No | Restrict help results to one help center category |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description earns credit by disclosing the return shape: ranked results with URL, Markdown URL, and snippet. With no output schema present, this return-format disclosure is the main behavioral value-add; pagination/ranking behavior is still unspecified.
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?
Two compact clauses with zero filler: the search scope is front-loaded and the get_article handoff closes it out. Every sentence carries load.
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 4-param read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the source dimension, and the return shape, plus the alternative tool. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around result ranking/pagination and category semantics.
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%, so query, limit, source, and category are all already documented at the field level; baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose restatement of the source split (help catalog vs. public QR templates) and does not explain the category enum values, which would have added real value.
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?
Specific verb (Search) + resource (Linkbreakers help center, guides, integrations, news, or QR templates) with scope stated explicitly. It also distinguishes itself from the get_article sibling by naming it and defining the handoff, so an agent can route without opening either schema.
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 explicitly routes the agent to get_article when a full help article is needed, which is genuine alternative guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use search (e.g., for pricing lookups covered by get_pricing) or exclusions around the two sources.
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.
list_featureslist_qr_templatessearch_docs2 fields changedInput schema / properties / category / descriptionPrevious value: -"Restrict results to one help center category"New value: +"Restrict help results to one help center category"Input schema / properties / sourceAdded value: +{
+ "default": "help",
+ "description": "help searches help center articles; qr_templates searches public QR code design templates",
+ "enum": [
+ "help",
+ "qr_templates"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}get_articleget_pricinglist_featureslist_qr_templatessearch_docsSearch and read the public Applivery docs (MDM & app distribution). Read-only, no auth.
Search and fetch AgendaForge public documentation and marketing content. No authentication needed.
Search published MkSaaS documentation. Read-only and public.
Public, read-only: search Splice docs and list models, live prices and templates. No sign-in.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
