Mint the stable asha.news/s/ short link for an article, generated brief, story cluster, or allowlisted route. Idempotent — the same target always returns the same code. Use this instead of pasting long URLs; the short link carries social preview metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | Yes | Article/brief/cluster id, or an allowlisted site path for target_type=route. | |
| target_type | Yes | What is being shared. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: 'Idempotent — the same target always returns the same code' and the social preview metadata feature. These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in the schema, though it omits potential details like authentication or error behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a key behavioral trait and usage advice. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.
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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and idempotency. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it does not describe return values or failure modes, which are not required given the absence of an output schema.
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 baseline is 3. The description restates the enum values ('article, generated brief, story cluster, or allowlisted route') which adds minor clarity over the schema ('What is being shared'), but does not provide substantial new semantic information beyond that.
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 the tool's function: 'Mint the stable asha.news/s/<code> short link' for specific target types. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing the short link's social preview metadata and its use instead of long URLs, differentiating from sibling sharing tools.
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 gives clear usage context ('Use this instead of pasting long URLs') and mentions a key benefit ('carries social preview metadata'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but still provides useful guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.