ping
Read-onlyIdempotent
Health check
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | a message to ping , default to Hello From Linkkly |
linkly
by com.linklyhq
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey. No contradiction.
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?
Extremely concise (2 words), front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though could be slightly more descriptive.
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 simple health check tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description is sufficient. No output schema needed.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'message', with a clear description in the schema. Description does not add extra parameter info.
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 'Health check' combined with the title 'Ping server' clearly indicates a tool for checking server availability. It is distinct from siblings like create_link or list_links.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the tool is simple and likely has no alternatives. Implied usage: call to verify connectivity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_links` and `search_links`, and between the several analytics/click tools. However, descriptions clarify their differences, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun pattern, but `batchDeleteLinks` uses camelCase, breaking consistency. Additionally, `ping` and `test_authentication` deviate from the resource-based naming.
Tool Count4/5
25 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for the scope, covering links, domains, analytics, webhooks, and workspace management. Each tool has a clear role, though the count could be slightly reduced by merging some analytics tools.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for links and domains, analytics (raw and aggregated), webhook management, workspace settings, and authentication checks. No obvious gaps for a URL shortening service.