Skip to main content
Glama

linkly

by com.linklyhq

test_authentication

Read-onlyIdempotent

Test API Authentication

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, describing safety profile. However, the description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., what 'test' entails, whether it returns status or user info). Given the minimal annotations, the description should provide more context beyond the name.

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?

The description is a single brief sentence, concise and to the point. However, it may be slightly under-specified, but given the tool's simplicity, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Considering 0 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any explanation of the return value or what 'testing' involves (e.g., a boolean, user object), leaving the agent to infer from the output schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no need for parameter elaboration.

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 'Test API Authentication' clearly states the tool's function: testing authentication. The name reinforces this. While siblings like 'ping' might also test connectivity, this tool is specifically for authentication, providing adequate distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ping'). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or when authentication testing is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All linkly toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources