list_linksИщет принадлежащие клиенту ссылки по географии, статусу и типу. Ничего не изменяет.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo | No | all | |
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| link_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces 'Changes nothing.' It adds that the tool searches by geography, status, and type, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No further details like pagination behavior or auth requirements are provided, but the read-only nature is well-covered.
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 sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('belonging to the client,' 'by geography, status, and type,' 'changes nothing') carries meaning.
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 five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is under-specified. It fails to explain the meaning of status and link_type, the behavior of pagination, or how to choose between this and sibling tools. The existence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns but not parameter or usage gaps.
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 0%, and the description only mentions 'geography, status, and type' without detailing the valid values or semantics for status and link_type. It also omits the pagination parameters page and per_page, leaving users to infer their meaning from names alone.
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: 'Searches for links belonging to the client by geography, status, and type.' This uses a specific verb (searches) and resource (client's links), and the filter criteria distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like submit_link and update_link_draft.
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 provides context that this is a read-only search operation for client links with filtering, and explicitly states 'Changes nothing,' implying use for querying rather than modifying. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this compared to alternatives like submit_link or update_link_draft, nor does it state exclusions.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but a few pairs (check_registration vs get_account_profile, submit_link vs submit_order) overlap in scope. Descriptions clarify the differences (single vs bulk, status vs full profile), so confusion is limited.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (begin_registration, list_orders, update_link_draft). The only slight deviation is 'bulk_update_order_draft' with the 'bulk' modifier, but it still fits the overall pattern.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized service covering registration, orders, links, tariffs, and checkout. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflow (register, browse tariffs, manage order drafts, submit links) is well covered. Minor gaps like lack of explicit order creation or deletion are likely handled externally or via the checkout process, so agents can still complete key tasks.