create_custom_linkCreate a trackable share link (socialloop.ai/go/…) for a live event — tag it with a source (instagram, newsletter) and optional campaign; clicks are counted. Opens the public or immersive page. Requires event_id; host only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| campaign | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| target_type | No |
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?
Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: clicks are counted, link opens specific page types. However, does not disclose potential side effects or whether the operation is reversible. Annotations are neutral so description fills some gaps but not all.
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, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, efficient delivery of key information. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, behavior, and constraints. Missing any mention of return value or errors, but overall adequate given the tool's complexity and sibling context.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'source' (instagram, newsletter), 'campaign' (optional), and implies 'target_type' (public or immersive). 'event_id' is mentioned as required. Compensates well for lack of parameter comments in 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?
Description clearly states verb 'create' and resource 'trackable share link', explaining its function (tag with source/campaign, click counting, opens public/immersive page). Distinguishes from numerous sibling tools by specifying the unique purpose of creating a trackable link for live events.
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?
States prerequisite 'Requires event_id; host only' but does not provide guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No mention of when other tools might be more appropriate.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the generic create_production_item vs specific add_* tools (e.g., add_role, add_meal). This creates ambiguity, as agents may struggle to choose between generic and specific counterparts. Additionally, similar verbs like 'add', 'create', and 'bulk_create' blur boundaries.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (add_guest, list_events), but there are inconsistencies: 'bulk_create_promo_codes' instead of 'create_bulk_promo_codes', mix of 'list' and 'get' (list_events vs get_account_status), and varied verbs like 'set', 'update', 'delete', 'archive', 'unarchive', 'reorder'. Overall pattern recognizable but not uniform.
115 tools is excessive for most domains, including event management. While the domain is complex, this granularity overwhelms agents and makes selection difficult. The tool count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15), indicating poor abstraction.
The tool set covers an extensive range of event management activities: events, tickets, guests, affiliates, discounts, production items, forms, communities, sponsors, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct event deletion, only cancellation), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.