Subscribe a webhook URL to receive click events for all links in the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The webhook URL to receive click event notifications |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, but the description lacks additional behavioral details such as idempotency, what happens on duplicate subscriptions, verification requirements, or error handling. For a create-like operation, this is insufficient.
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?
One sentence, no wasted words. Could be improved by adding key behavior info without becoming verbose, but it is concise and front-loaded with purpose.
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 subscription tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and scope adequately but omits return value behavior and side effects, leaving moderate gaps.
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 single parameter 'url' is well-described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema text, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 clearly states the verb 'Subscribe', the resource 'webhook URL', and the scope 'for all links in the workspace', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe_link_webhook and list_webhooks.
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 by context (workspace-level subscription vs per-link), but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. For example, it doesn't mention that subscribe_link_webhook is for specific links.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.