Unofficial dubco-mcp-server
The Unofficial dubco-mcp-server enables AI assistants to manage Dub.co short links via the Model Context Protocol (MCP). With this server, you can:
Create short links: Generate custom short links with optional slugs, domains, and external IDs
Update short links: Modify existing links by changing their destination URL, domain, or slug
Delete short links: Remove links by specifying their ID
AI integration: Seamlessly integrate with AI assistants like Claude through MCP for automated link management
Configuration: Works with Cursor IDE and supports environment-based API key setup
Allows users to create, update, and delete short links through the Dub.co API using npm packages
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Unofficial dubco-mcp-servercreate a short link for my blog post about MCP servers"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Unofficial dubco-mcp-server
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for creating and managing Dub.co short links (unofficial). This server enables AI assistants to create, update, and delete short links through the Dub.co API.
π Features
Create custom short links with your Dub.co domains
Update existing short links
Delete short links
Seamless integration with AI assistants through the Model Context Protocol
Related MCP server: MCP API Server
π Prerequisites
Node.js 16.0.0 or higher
A Dub.co account with API access
An API key from the Dub.co dashboard
π» Installation
Installing via Smithery
To install Dub.co MCP Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @Gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm --client claudeGlobal Installation
npm install -g dubco-mcp-serverLocal Installation
npm install dubco-mcp-serverDirect Usage with npx
npx dubco-mcp-serverβοΈ Configuration
This MCP server requires a Dub.co API key to function. You can get your API key from the Dub.co dashboard.
Set the API key as an environment variable:
export DUBCO_API_KEY=your_api_key_hereFor persistent configuration, add this to your shell profile (e.g., .bashrc, .zshrc):
echo 'export DUBCO_API_KEY=your_api_key_here' >> ~/.zshrcπ₯οΈ Cursor IDE Setup
Cursor IDE provides native support for MCP servers. Follow these steps to set up the dubco-mcp-server in Cursor:
Step 1: Install Cursor IDE
If you haven't already, download and install Cursor IDE (version 0.4.5.9 or later).
Step 2: Open Cursor Settings
Open Cursor IDE
Click on the gear icon in the bottom left corner, or use the keyboard shortcut
Cmd+,(Mac) orCtrl+,(Windows/Linux)Navigate to the Features section
Scroll down to find the "MCP Servers" section
Step 3: Add the MCP Server
Click on "+ Add new MCP server"
In the dialog that appears:
Name: Enter "Dub.co MCP Server" (or any name you prefer)
Type: Select "command" from the dropdown
Command: Enter
env DUBCO_API_KEY=your_api_key_here npx -y dubco-mcp-server(Replaceyour_api_key_herewith your actual Dub.co API key)
Click "Save" to add the server
Step 4: Verify the Connection
After adding the MCP server, you should see a green status indicator next to the server name. If it shows a red or yellow status, try:
Checking that your API key is correct
Restarting Cursor IDE
Verifying that Node.js (16.0.0+) is properly installed
Step 5: Using the Server
The dubco-mcp-server provides tools that can be used with Cursor's AI features:
Open Cursor's Composer or Agent mode (MCP only works in these modes)
Explicitly instruct the AI to use the Dub.co tools (create_link, update_link, delete_link)
Accept the tool usage prompts when they appear
π§ Usage with MCP
This server provides tools that can be used by AI assistants through the Model Context Protocol. To use it with an MCP-compatible AI assistant, add it to your MCP configuration.
MCP Configuration Example
{
"mcpServers": {
"dubco": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "dubco-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"DUBCO_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}Available Tools
create_link
Create a new short link on Dub.co.
Parameters:
{
"url": "https://example.com",
"key": "optional-custom-slug",
"externalId": "optional-external-id",
"domain": "optional-domain-slug"
}Example:
{
"url": "https://github.com/gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm",
"key": "dubco-mcp"
}update_link
Update an existing short link on Dub.co.
Parameters:
{
"linkId": "link-id-to-update",
"url": "https://new-destination.com",
"domain": "new-domain-slug",
"key": "new-custom-slug"
}Example:
{
"linkId": "clwxyz123456",
"url": "https://github.com/gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm/releases"
}delete_link
Delete a short link on Dub.co.
Parameters:
{
"linkId": "link-id-to-delete"
}Example:
{
"linkId": "clwxyz123456"
}π How It Works
The server connects to the Dub.co API using your API key and provides a standardized interface for AI assistants to interact with Dub.co through the Model Context Protocol. When a tool is called:
The server validates the input parameters
It sends the appropriate request to the Dub.co API
It processes the response and returns it in a format that the AI assistant can understand
π οΈ Development
Building from Source
git clone https://github.com/gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm.git
cd dubco-mcp-server-npm
npm install
npm run buildRunning in Development Mode
npm run devπ License
This project is licensed under the ISC License - see the LICENSE file for details.
π Links
Dub.co - The URL shortener service
Model Context Protocol - Learn more about MCP
π₯ Contributing
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
Fork the repository
Create your feature branch (
git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)Commit your changes (
git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature')Push to the branch (
git push origin feature/amazing-feature)Open a Pull Request
π¨βπ» Created By
This unofficial Dub.co MCP Server was created by GitMaxd (@gitmaxd on X).
This project was developed as a learning exercise to understand the Model Context Protocol and how to build MCP servers. I chose Dub.co as the integration target because of its straightforward API and practical utility, making it an ideal candidate for a learning project.
While I have no official affiliation with Dub.co, I highly recommend their service for both manual and automated short link creation. Their API is well-documented and easy to work with, making it perfect for this kind of integration.
If you find this project helpful or have suggestions for improvements, feel free to reach out or contribute to the repository. Happy link shortening!
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_linkC
Create a new short link on dub.co, asking the user which domain to use
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The destination URL to shorten | |
| key | No | Optional custom slug for the short link. If not provided, a random slug will be generated. | |
| externalId | No | Optional external ID for the link | |
| domain | No | Optional domain slug to use. If not provided, the primary domain will be used. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a short link and involves user interaction for domain selection, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate keys, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the user interaction note. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or response format, and lacks usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schemaβit doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond the schema, or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Create a new short link') and the target resource ('on dub.co'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than deletion or updating, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools. The mention of 'asking the user which domain to use' adds specificity about user interaction.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_link or delete_link. It mentions asking about the domain, which implies a user interaction context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete_linkC
Delete a short link on dub.co
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| linkId | Yes | The ID of the link to delete |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a link, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address important contextual details like what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error messages), side effects, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 has 100% description coverage, with 'linkId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the link to delete'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details, but the schema adequately covers the parameter, so 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a short link on dub.co'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_link' or 'update_link', which would require mentioning it's for removal rather than creation or modification, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_link' for modifying links or 'create_link' for adding new ones. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing link ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_linkC
Update an existing short link on dub.co
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| linkId | Yes | The ID of the link to update | |
| url | No | The new destination URL | |
| domain | No | The new domain for the short link | |
| key | No | The new slug for the short link |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the update returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of updating a resource with multiple optional fields, more context is needed for completeness.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing short link on dub.co'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_link' or 'delete_link' beyond the verb itself, which prevents a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_link' or 'delete_link'. It mentions updating an 'existing' link, which implies a prerequisite but doesn't specify how to determine if a link exists or when updates are appropriate over deletion/recreation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific CRUD operation on short links: create, delete, and update. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these actions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the intended operation.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_link, delete_link, update_link) with uniform snake_case styling. This predictability enhances readability and reduces cognitive load for agents when scanning the toolset.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a link management domain, as it lacks a 'get' or 'list' tool to retrieve existing links, which is a common and necessary operation. While the tools present are well-defined, the count is borderline low for practical use.
The toolset has significant gaps for a dub.co link management server. It covers create, update, and delete operations but omits retrieval tools (e.g., get_link, list_links), leaving agents unable to query existing links. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures in workflows requiring read operations.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yoβ¦
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Short-link service embedded in your AI workflow β shorten links, track campaigns, read stats.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Control Protocol server that enables Claude Desktop to interact with your self-hosted YOURLS URL shortener, allowing Claude to automatically shorten URLs, expand short URLs, and retrieve click statistics.14
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to make HTTP requests (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) to external APIs through standardized MCP tools.42MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceModel Context Protocol server that standardizes tool discovery, execution, and context management for AI applications.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server for Dub that enables creating, updating, deleting short links and retrieving link analytics through natural language.
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server