Scribase

Create an app link

links.create

A short link that opens the app on path (and after install, on first launch); a computer goes to the web fallback with the same path. Answers the code and URL. Scope: functions:write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "links.create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	A custom code (3 to 64 letters, digits, _ or -)
`path`	Yes	In-app path, such as /product/42
`title`	No	A label for the Links page
`branch`	No	Branch (environment) id. Optional: defaults to `production`.
`project_id`	No	Project id. Optional: defaults to the project created or used last in this session, or the only one.
`organization_id`	No	Organization id. Optional: defaults to the token's organization, or the only one you belong to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds two things the annotations cannot: the required `functions:write` scope and the shape of the answer ('Answers the code and URL'). It also explains runtime behavior of the created artifact — app deep link first, web fallback with the same path — which is genuinely useful. It does not mention what happens if a custom `code` collides with an existing one, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

One dense sentence describing the artifact and its answer, followed by a short scope clause — front-loaded with no filler. The opening noun phrase is slightly elliptical (it reads as a definition of the artifact rather than an action), which costs a point.

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 6-parameter, single-required-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool makes, what it returns, and its auth scope. The remaining gap — error behavior on duplicate `code` and the fact that this is a mutation with no stated reversibility — is modest.

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%, so every parameter already carries its own description and the baseline is 3. The description does add a little meaning the schema does not: that `path` is applied both to the app deep link and to the web fallback URL. No guidance is given on `code` conflict behavior or on the defaults for `branch`/`project_id`/`organization_id`.

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 names the specific resource being produced (a short link that opens the app on `path`, with a web fallback) and its return values, so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It lacks an explicit verb ('creates') and never names `links.list` as the read-side counterpart, so sibling differentiation is left to the title.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives — nothing says to reach for this instead of `links.list`, or what preconditions beyond scope must hold. The 'Scope: functions:write' note is an auth constraint rather than usage guidance.

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

All Scribase tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?