get_linkRead one link on the account: its destination, title, click count, creation date and UTM settings. Requires a ShareCut API key (Business plan).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | The link, given either as its short code (the part after sharecut.site/) or as the id returned when it was created. A full ShareCut URL is accepted too. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read (non-destructive) and lists the returned fields, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not address rate limits, failure modes, or any side effects, and the auth requirement is a prerequisite rather than a behavior. This is adequate for a simple read but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded ('Read one link'), followed by a concise list of returned fields, then a single prerequisite. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (by listing fields) and the auth requirement. It doesn't describe the output shape or error cases, but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is almost complete; a minor gap on error behavior keeps it from a 5.
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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter's description already explains the accepted formats (short code, id, or full URL). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Read one link') and a clear resource, then enumerates the exact fields returned (destination, title, click count, creation date, UTM settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_links (lists many) and get_link_analytics (analytics focus), leaving no doubt about what the tool does.
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?
It mentions a hard prerequisite (ShareCut API key, Business plan) which gives some usage context, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_links or get_link_analytics. The phrasing 'Read one link' implies you want a specific link, but the distinction is left to inference.
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 clearly distinct purposes with strong descriptions, but three tools (create_qr, shorten_url, get_link_qr) can all produce a QR code, which could cause misselection without careful reading. The public-versus-account split and singular-versus-bulk variants are otherwise well separated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_, create_, delete_, expand_, get_, list_, shorten_, update_. Composite names like get_link_analytics and shorten_urls_bulk extend the pattern predictably without mixing conventions.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a QR and short-link management API. It includes public query tools, full CRUD for links, bulk creation, QR retrieval, analytics, and account status, with no unnecessary duplication.
The core link lifecycle is covered: create, read, list, update, delete, plus QR generation, analytics, and account info. Minor gaps exist around non-link resources like link-in-bio pages or restaurant menus that are only referenced by list_links, and there is no API to edit QR artwork directly, but these are peripheral to the stated purpose.