Dub.co の短縮リンクを作成および管理するためのモデルコンテキストプロトコル (MCP) サーバー（非公式）。このサーバーにより、AI アシスタントは Dub.co API を介して短縮リンクを作成、更新、削除できるようになります。
Dub.coドメインでカスタムショートリンクを作成する
既存の短縮リンクを更新する
短縮リンクを削除する
モデルコンテキストプロトコルによるAIアシスタントとのシームレスな統合
Related MCP server: MCP API Server
Node.js 16.0.0以上
APIアクセス可能なDub.coアカウント
Dub.coダッシュボードのAPIキー
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の Dub.co MCP サーバーを自動的にインストールするには:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @Gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm --client claudenpm install -g dubco-mcp-servernpm install dubco-mcp-servernpx dubco-mcp-serverこのMCPサーバーを動作させるには、Dub.co APIキーが必要です。APIキーはDub.coダッシュボードから取得できます。
API キーを環境変数として設定します。
export DUBCO_API_KEY=your_api_key_here永続的な構成の場合は、シェル プロファイル (例: .bashrc 、 .zshrc ) に以下を追加します。
echo 'export DUBCO_API_KEY=your_api_key_here' >> ~/.zshrcCursor IDEはMCPサーバーをネイティブサポートしています。Cursorでdubco-mcp-serverを設定するには、以下の手順に従ってください。
まだインストールしていない場合は、 Cursor IDE (バージョン 0.4.5.9 以降) をダウンロードしてインストールしてください。
オープンカーソルIDE
左下隅の歯車アイコンをクリックするか、キーボードショートカットのCmd+, (Mac) またはCtrl+, (Windows/Linux) を使用します。
機能セクションに移動する
下にスクロールして「MCPサーバー」セクションを見つけます
「+新しいMCPサーバーを追加」をクリックします
表示されるダイアログで次の操作を行います。
名前：「Dub.co MCP Server」（または任意の名前）を入力します
タイプ: ドロップダウンから「コマンド」を選択します
コマンド: env DUBCO_API_KEY=your_api_key_here npx -y dubco-mcp-serverと入力します ( your_api_key_here実際の Dub.co API キーに置き換えます)
「保存」をクリックしてサーバーを追加します
MCPサーバーを追加すると、サーバー名の横に緑色のステータスインジケーターが表示されます。赤色または黄色のステータスインジケーターが表示されている場合は、以下をお試しください。
APIキーが正しいか確認する
カーソルIDEの再起動
Node.js (16.0.0+) が正しくインストールされていることを確認する
dubco-mcp-server は、Cursor の AI 機能で使用できるツールを提供します。
カーソルの Composer モードまたは Agent モードを開きます (MCP はこれらのモードでのみ動作します)
AIにDub.coツール（create_link、update_link、delete_link）を使用するよう明示的に指示する
ツールの使用に関するプロンプトが表示されたら承認します
このサーバーは、モデルコンテキストプロトコルを介してAIアシスタントが使用できるツールを提供します。MCP対応のAIアシスタントで使用するには、MCP構成に追加してください。
{
"mcpServers": {
"dubco": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "dubco-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"DUBCO_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}Dub.co に新しい短縮リンクを作成します。
パラメータ:
{
"url": "https://example.com",
"key": "optional-custom-slug",
"externalId": "optional-external-id",
"domain": "optional-domain-slug"
}例：
{
"url": "https://github.com/gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm",
"key": "dubco-mcp"
}Dub.co の既存の短縮リンクを更新します。
パラメータ:
{
"linkId": "link-id-to-update",
"url": "https://new-destination.com",
"domain": "new-domain-slug",
"key": "new-custom-slug"
}例：
{
"linkId": "clwxyz123456",
"url": "https://github.com/gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm/releases"
}Dub.co の短縮リンクを削除します。
パラメータ:
{
"linkId": "link-id-to-delete"
}例：
{
"linkId": "clwxyz123456"
}サーバーはAPIキーを使用してDub.co APIに接続し、AIアシスタントがモデルコンテキストプロトコルを介してDub.coとやり取りするための標準化されたインターフェースを提供します。ツールが呼び出されると、以下の処理が行われます。
サーバーは入力パラメータを検証します
Dub.co APIに適切なリクエストを送信します
応答を処理し、AIアシスタントが理解できる形式で返します。
git clone https://github.com/gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm.git
cd dubco-mcp-server-npm
npm install
npm run buildnpm run devこのプロジェクトは ISC ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています - 詳細についてはLICENSEファイルを参照してください。
Dub.co - URL短縮サービス
モデルコンテキストプロトコル- MCP の詳細
貢献を歓迎します！お気軽にプルリクエストを送信してください。
リポジトリをフォークする
機能ブランチを作成します（ git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature ）
変更をコミットします ( git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature' )
ブランチにプッシュする ( git push origin feature/amazing-feature )
プルリクエストを開く
この非公式 Dub.co MCP サーバーは、 GitMaxd (X では@gitmaxd ) によって作成されました。
このプロジェクトは、モデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）とMCPサーバーの構築方法を理解するための学習演習として開発されました。Dub.coを統合対象として選んだのは、その分かりやすいAPIと実用的なユーティリティが学習プロジェクトに最適だったからです。
Dub.coと正式な提携関係はありませんが、手動と自動の両方で短縮リンクを作成する場合、このサービスを強くお勧めします。APIはドキュメントが充実しており、操作も簡単なので、このような統合に最適です。
このプロジェクトが役に立ったと感じたり、改善のご提案がありましたら、お気軽にご連絡いただくか、リポジトリへの貢献をお願いいたします。リンク短縮をぜひお楽しみください！
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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions domain selection but fails to describe key traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a short URL). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the required 'url' parameter or output expectations.
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 complexity of a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., the generated short link), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like idempotency. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at domain selection ('asking the user which domain to use'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or context for parameters like 'key' or 'externalId'. 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 ('Create a new short link') and the resource ('on dub.co'), with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_link' and 'update_link' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'upsert_link' which might have overlapping functionality.
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 implies usage when creating a short link on dub.co, with a hint about domain selection ('asking the user which domain to use'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upsert_link' or 'update_link', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a short link on dub.co
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| linkId | Yes | The ID of the link to delete |
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 mention whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, how it affects associated data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap, leaving the agent with insufficient information about behavioral traits.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key verb 'Delete' and specifies the resource clearly. There's zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while still being informative enough for basic understanding.
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 destructive nature (deletion), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' entails (permanent vs. soft delete), error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should provide more behavioral and outcome details to be sufficiently complete for safe agent use.
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 the single parameter 'linkId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the link to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra help from the description.
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 explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_link' or 'update_link', but the verb 'Delete' inherently distinguishes it from creation and modification operations. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.
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 'upsert_link'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing link ID), error conditions, or typical use cases. While the action is clear, there's no context to help an agent decide between this and other link management tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 |
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 but doesn't mention what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing data not mentioned in parameters, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when the update succeeds or fails, what permissions are needed, or how this differs from sibling tools. Given the complexity of updating database records and the lack of structured safety information, more context is needed.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
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 this tool from its sibling 'upsert_link' which might also update links, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
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 'upsert_link' or 'create_link'. It mentions 'existing short link' which implies a prerequisite that the link must already exist, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0create_linkdelete_linkupdate_linkScored across 3 tools
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.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
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 — shorten links, track campaigns, read stats.
