Surli MCP

update_alias

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the custom alias of an existing short link (requires supported plan).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`surl`	Yes	The current short URL or alias
`new_alias`	Yes	The desired new custom alias

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`short_url`	Yes	The short URL reflecting the new alias
`user_message`	Yes	Human-readable confirmation or error message
`dashboard_url`	No	Link to manage this short URL in the Surli dashboard

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "dashboard_url": {
+      "description": "Link to manage this short URL in the Surli dashboard",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "short_url": {
+      "description": "The short URL reflecting the new alias",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "user_message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable confirmation or error message",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "short_url",
+    "user_message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey the destructive, non-read-only, idempotent nature of the operation, so the description need not repeat that. It adds the 'requires supported plan' plan-gating constraint, but does not go further into side effects such as the old alias becoming invalid or possible uniqueness conflicts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with no filler; the key action and the plan requirement are both front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and useful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It includes the plan prerequisite and existing-link scope; only a brief note about the fate of the old alias or uniqueness constraints would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that the alias belongs to an existing short link, which is a modest elaboration over the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action ('Update'), a precise target ('custom alias of an existing short link'), and a constraint ('requires supported plan'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like update_destination, which targets 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: the operation applies to an existing short link and requires a supported plan, which implies it is not for creating a link and not available on all plans. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Surli MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?