shortlink_rotateReplace the public redirect destination for an existing short link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| utm_params | No | ||
| shortlink_id | Yes | ||
| destination_url | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds that only the redirect destination is replaced, which scopes the destructive action, but it does not explain side effects like whether the old URL immediately stops working or how confirmation_token/idempotency affect the operation.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key action and target are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately scannable.
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?
With six parameters, a destructive annotation, and zero parameter-level documentation, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. Critical unknowns like why confirmation_token exists, how idempotency_key should be used, and whether utm_params are replaced or merged are left unresolved.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters, but it only clarifies destination_url. Parameters such as shortlink_id, project_id, utm_params, idempotency_key, and confirmation_token receive no meaningful guidance, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
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 names a specific verb ('Replace') and a specific resource ('public redirect destination for an existing short link'). It clearly differs from the sibling shortlink_create, so an agent can tell this is an update/rotation operation rather than a creation operation.
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?
The description makes clear this applies to an existing short link, implying it should not be used for creating new links. It does not explicitly name shortlink_create as the alternative, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.