Fetch a shortText by its slug (the id in a shorttext.com/{slug} URL). Returns the text body and metadata. Public and unlisted shortTexts are open; private ones need a password. Reading a burn-after-read shortText consumes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The shortText slug, e.g. "abc12345". | |
| password | No | Password — required only for private shortTexts. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It transparently states that burn-after-read shortTexts are consumed upon reading, which is critical behavioral information. It also clarifies input requirements (password for private).
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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return value and access behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns the text body and metadata', which is a start but lacks specifics about the response structure or error cases. However, for a simple read operation with two parameters, it covers the essential contexts (access levels, side effects) sufficiently.
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 description doesn't need to add much for parameters. It adds context by linking the slug to the URL format and reiterates the password requirement, but doesn't provide additional constraints or deeper semantics beyond 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 clearly states the action: 'Fetch a shortText by its slug', specifying the resource and identifier. It distinguishes from the sibling create_shorttext by focusing on reading rather than creation.
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?
Provides clear context on when access is allowed ('Public and unlisted shortTexts are open; private ones need a password') and notes the burn-after-read consumption. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool name makes the distinction obvious.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one creates a shortText, the other reads it. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern (create_shorttext, read_shorttext), providing a consistent and predictable naming convention.
With only two tools, the set is on the thin side for a typical MCP server, but it may be appropriate given the narrow scope of the shorttext service.
The surface covers create and read operations but lacks update and delete, which are notable gaps for a content-management domain.
