microlink
Server Details
Microlink MCP — wraps Microlink API (free tier, no auth required)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-microlink
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_metadata extracts textual and media metadata from URLs, while take_screenshot captures visual snapshots of webpages. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the need for data extraction versus visual capture.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_metadata, take_screenshot), using clear, action-oriented verbs that describe their operations precisely. This consistency enhances readability and predictability for agent usage.
With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a domain like URL processing, which typically involves more operations such as link validation, performance metrics, or content analysis. This minimal set may limit agent capabilities in handling diverse web-related tasks.
The toolset is severely incomplete for web URL processing, lacking essential operations like link validation, content extraction beyond metadata, or error handling for invalid URLs. While the existing tools cover metadata and screenshots, significant gaps prevent comprehensive agent workflows in this domain.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_metadataCInspect
Extract metadata from any URL including title, description, image, author, publisher, logo, and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL to extract metadata from. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what metadata is extracted but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'and more' encompasses. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for an agent to use it effectively.
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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes relevant examples. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of metadata types.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (metadata extraction from URLs) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks important context about limitations, return format, error conditions, and how it differs from the sibling screenshot tool. The 'and more' is vague and doesn't provide complete information.
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% (the single parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't elaborate on URL format requirements, supported protocols, or validation rules.
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 tool's purpose: 'Extract metadata from any URL' with specific examples of what metadata is extracted (title, description, image, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('metadata'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from its sibling tool 'take_screenshot' which serves a different function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is for metadata extraction, there's no mention of when to use it instead of 'take_screenshot' or other potential tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
take_screenshotBInspect
Take a screenshot of a webpage and return the screenshot image URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL of the webpage to screenshot. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'the screenshot image URL' but omits critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, image format, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs an external operation (screenshot capture). It fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or output details (e.g., image format, URL validity), which are crucial for reliable agent use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'url' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the URL is for a webpage, which is already covered. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('Take a screenshot') and resource ('of a webpage'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_metadata' by focusing on visual capture rather than metadata extraction. It's precise and unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'get_metadata' or other potential tools for webpage analysis. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!