Create and manage short links from ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor and other MCP-compatible AI tools using Surli. Supports OAuth authentication, custom aliases, destination updates, password protection, bulk shortening and link management.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: creating links, checking account limits, retrieving link info, and updating alias or destination. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, update_) with clear, predictable naming. The only minor variation is the compound noun 'short_link' but this remains internally consistent.
Five tools is well-scoped for a URL shortener MCP server, covering the core actions without unnecessary bloat or missing essential utilities.
The server covers create, read, and update operations for short links, plus account limits. However, there is no delete/remove tool and no list/search tool, leaving notable gaps in the expected link lifecycle.
Shorten a destination URL via Surli and return short link and stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias | No | Optional custom slug/alias for the short URL | |
| title | No | Optional display title or tag for the link | |
| destination_url | Yes | The full target destination URL to shorten (e.g. https://example.com) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only mentions the action and return value. It does not disclose persistence side effects, alias-conflict behavior, permissions, or failure modes, which matter for a creation tool.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and what it returns.
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 3-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and gives a hint of the output. However, with no output schema, the mention of 'stats' remains vague, and service-specific constraints or error behaviors are absent.
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%, so the description does not need to restate parameters; it also does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides for destination_url, alias, and title. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.
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?
States a concrete verb ('Shorten'), a specific resource ('destination URL'), a service ('Surli'), and an expected result ('short link and stats'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_short_link and update_alias/update_destination, which retrieve or modify rather than create.
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 use when a new shortened URL is needed, and the create/read/update contrast with siblings gives some context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over get_short_link or update_alias/update_destination, and it offers no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check current user tariff plan and available short link limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Check' signals a read-only operation, and 'current user' indicates scoping, which is useful given no annotations are provided. But the description doesn't disclose the return format, possible errors, or behavior when no plan/limits exist, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
This is a simple zero-parameter getter, and the description covers the essential purpose and scope. The lack of return details is a minor gap, but the tool's low complexity means the description is largely adequate for correct invocation.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds useful context by specifying that limits are scoped to the current user, which goes beyond the empty 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource ('current user tariff plan and available short link limits'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling short-link CRUD tools, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
Usage context is implied by the purpose: use this tool when you need the current user's plan or link limits. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools are clearly different operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve info and status about an existing short link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surl | Yes | The short URL or alias identifier (e.g. summer-sale or https://surl.li/abc) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve info and status' and gives no details about what fields are returned, how invalid or expired short links are handled, whether authentication is required, or whether the call has side effects such as incrementing click counts.
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 with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy to parse and remember.
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 one-parameter read tool, the definition is minimally workable, but there is no output schema and the description's 'info and status' is vague about the response shape. An agent would benefit from knowing what status information is returned and how missing or invalid short links are reported.
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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'surl' with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb, 'Retrieve', and a concrete resource, 'info and status about an existing short link'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which create short links, update aliases/destinations, or retrieve account limits.
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 phrase 'existing short link' makes the intended use case clear: reading information/status rather than creating or updating. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update the custom alias of an existing short link (requires supported plan).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surl | Yes | The current short URL or alias | |
| new_alias | Yes | The desired new custom alias |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a mutation and that a supported plan is needed, but it does not disclose uniqueness constraints, whether the old alias becomes available, timing, idempotency, or what the response indicates about success.
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, focused sentence with no redundant phrasing. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the plan requirement is appended without adding clutter.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential operation and plan requirement. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around expected behaviors such as alias conflict handling, whether the destination remains unchanged, and failure conditions.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond matching 'surl' to 'existing short link' and 'new_alias' to 'custom alias', but it does not provide extra format, uniqueness, or validation details.
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 specific action ('Update'), a specific resource ('custom alias of an existing short link'), and a plan prerequisite. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling update_destination, which would update the destination URL rather than the alias.
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 includes a prerequisite ('requires supported plan') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_destination or create_short_link. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update the target destination URL of an existing short link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surl | Yes | The short URL or alias to update | |
| new_destination_url | Yes | The new destination URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the destination URL is updated; it does not mention permissions, validation, irreversibility, side effects, or response behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: it states the action, the target, and the scope ('existing short link').
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 two-parameter update tool with fully described parameters, this is minimally viable but not rich. The absence of annotations and an output schema means side effects, error conditions, and return behavior are left unspecified, though the core operation is clear.
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 input schema already has full descriptions for both parameters, covering 100% of them. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('update') and a precise resource ('target destination URL of an existing short link'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like create_short_link and update_alias by naming the particular property being modified.
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 intended use is implied: when an existing short link's destination URL needs to be changed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it relates to update_alias, so the agent must infer the appropriate choice from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
create_short_linkget_account_limitsget_short_linkupdate_aliasupdate_destinationClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
