Shorten a URL into an in.bio short link. Free, no account or token needed. Anonymous links are deleted after 30 days unless claimed via the returned claim_url; claimed/account links also get click analytics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The long URL to shorten |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: free usage, no authentication needed, 30-day expiration for anonymous links, and the ability to claim links for analytics via the returned claim_url.
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?
Three sentences that are concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, free usage, expiration, and claim mechanism. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'url' described in schema as 'The long URL to shorten'). The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter itself, only contextual information about the tool's behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Shorten a URL into an in.bio short link' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_link' (which likely requires an account) by emphasizing 'Free, no account or token needed.'
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 explains the context of use: free, anonymous, with expiration after 30 days unless claimed. It implies when to use this tool over account-based tools, but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives.
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 targets a distinct operation (create, delete, update, list, etc.) on specific resources (links, folders, tags, analytics). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_link, list_folders, and get_link_analytics. No deviations or mixed styles.
With 12 tools, the server covers the essential operations for a URL shortener (CRUD, analytics, QR codes, folders, tags) without being bloated or incomplete.
The tool set provides full lifecycle management for short links (create, read, update, delete, enable/disable), plus analytics, folders, tags, QR generation, and account usage. No obvious gaps.
