linktree_profile_getGet a public Linktree profile by handle, including links and socials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Linktree handle to look up, with or without a leading @. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read from an open world. The description adds that it returns links and socials, which gives some context on the output content. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication requirements (though public implies no auth), or what happens if the handle doesn't exist. Since the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds modest value. No contradiction with annotations. A 3 is appropriate.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, the resource, the identifier, and the expected content (links and socials). It is front-loaded with the action and resource. The only minor issue is that it could be more explicit about what 'links' and 'socials' mean, but it's appropriately concise.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description is almost sufficient. It tells the agent what to expect (links and socials) but doesn't describe the structure of the response or any edge cases (e.g., visibility of certain links). With no output schema, the agent must infer the return shape. The annotations cover the safety aspect. For a simple getter, this is adequate but leaves some uncertainty about response structure. A 3 is fair.
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 parameter 'handle' is fully described in the schema: 'Linktree handle to look up, with or without a leading @.' The description in the tool doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the full burden. The description's mention of 'by handle' reiterates the parameter but adds no new syntax or formatting details. Baseline 3 for 100% coverage is correct.
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 clear purpose: retrieve a Linktree profile by handle, with the scope of including links and socials. It uses the verb 'Get' and the resource 'public Linktree profile', which is distinct enough from the many sibling profile getters (e.g., bluesky_profile_get, twitter_profile_get) because it names the platform and the specific content returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Linktree-related tools (none exist in siblings, so fine) or from similar profile tools, but the mention of 'handle' and 'links and socials' adds specificity. A 4 is appropriate; it's clear but could be more explicit about what a Linktree profile typically contains.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a public Linktree profile by handle, including its links and socials. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling list contains many profile getters, the description could guide an agent on when to choose this over, for example, a social profile getter. The mention of 'public' suggests it's for public profiles only, but no explicit exclusions. This is minimal but adequate for a simple read tool, so a 3 is fair.
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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.