Hopi

UTM link generator

hopi_utm_link_generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Add UTM campaign parameters (utm_source, utm_medium, utm_campaign, utm_term, utm_content) to a URL without breaking existing query parameters. Warns on mixed case and notes any missing core parameters. Only http and https URLs are accepted. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/utm-link-generator/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The base URL to tag (https:// assumed if no scheme given)
`utm_term`	No	Paid keyword term (optional)
`utm_medium`	No	The marketing medium, e.g. email
`utm_source`	No	Where the traffic comes from, e.g. newsletter
`utm_content`	No	Content variant, e.g. button vs text link (optional)
`utm_campaign`	No	The campaign name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`notes`	No
`summary`	Yes
`warning`	No
`source_url`	Yes	The tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 20, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / warning / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "source_url",
+  "summary"
+]
```
First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: existing query parameters are preserved, mixed-case inputs trigger warnings, missing core parameters are noted, and only http/https URLs are accepted. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, followed by key behavioral constraints and warnings. The source URL is short and unobtrusive. Every sentence 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 6-parameter generator with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers URL protocol restrictions, preservation of existing query parameters, and warning behavior. Minor ambiguity remains around what 'mixed case' refers to and which parameters count as 'core,' but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The tool description enumerates the parameter names but adds no semantic information beyond the schema, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('URL'), and explicitly lists all UTM parameters. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from URL-related siblings like hopi_url_encoder or hopi_url_parser.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use case—tagging URLs with UTM parameters—is clearly implied, and there are eligibility constraints ('Only http and https URLs are accepted'). However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools.

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

All Hopi 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?