Un servidor MCP para interactuar con la API del acortador de enlaces de Dub.co. Este servidor permite a los agentes de IA crear, actualizar y gestionar enlaces cortos a través de tu cuenta de Dub.co.
Crea enlaces cortos con slugs personalizados
Actualizar enlaces cortos existentes
Insertar enlaces (crear o actualizar)
Eliminar enlaces
Selección automática de dominio
Related MCP server: Linkly MCP Server
Para instalar automáticamente el servidor acortador de enlaces Dub.co para Claude Desktop a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @Gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server --client claudeNode.js 18 o superior
Una cuenta de Dub.co con acceso a la API
Una clave API de Dub.co
npm install -g dubco-mcp-serverLuego agregue lo siguiente a su configuración de MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"dubco-server": {
"command": "dubco-mcp-server",
"env": {
"DUBCO_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/Gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server.git
cd dubco-mcp-server
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run buildLuego agregue lo siguiente a su configuración de MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"dubco-server": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/dubco-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
"env": {
"DUBCO_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}Inicia sesión en tu cuenta de Dub.co
Vaya a la configuración de su espacio de trabajo
Vaya a la sección "API"
Generar una nueva clave API
Una vez instalado y configurado, el servidor MCP proporciona las siguientes herramientas a los agentes de IA:
Crea un nuevo enlace corto en dub.co.
{
"url": "https://example.com",
"key": "example", // optional
"domain": "your-domain.com", // optional
"externalId": "123" // optional
}Actualizar un enlace corto existente en dub.co.
{
"linkId": "link_id_here",
"url": "https://new-example.com", // optional
"domain": "new-domain.com", // optional
"key": "new-slug" // optional
}Crea o actualiza un enlace corto en dub.co.
{
"url": "https://example.com",
"key": "example", // optional
"domain": "your-domain.com", // optional
"externalId": "123" // optional
}Eliminar un enlace corto en dub.co.
{
"linkId": "link_id_here"
}Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT)
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.
Create or update a short link on dub.co, asking the user which domain to use if creating
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool may prompt the user for domain selection during creation, which is valuable context beyond basic upsert functionality. However, it doesn't cover other important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during updates vs. creations, leaving 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Create or update a short link on dub.co') and adds only essential behavioral context ('asking the user which domain to use if creating'). There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration—every word serves a clear purpose.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose and some behavioral context (user prompting for domain). However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, response format, or error handling, which are important for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps, but the description alone is insufficient for full contextual understanding.
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 fully documents all 4 parameters (url, key, externalId, domain). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides—it mentions domain selection generally but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 or update'), the resource ('a short link on dub.co'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it handles both creation and updating (unlike create_link, delete_link, or update_link which are separate). The phrase 'asking the user which domain to use if creating' adds specific behavioral context that further differentiates it.
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 context by mentioning 'if creating' and referencing domain selection, which suggests this tool is for upsert operations where domain choice matters during creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling tools (create_link, update_link) or provide clear alternatives or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about the optimal choice between these 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_linkupsert_linkScored across 4 tools
The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. create_link and upsert_link both handle link creation, with upsert_link also updating existing links, making it ambiguous when to choose one over the other. However, delete_link and update_link are clearly distinct, and descriptions help clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (create_link, delete_link, update_link, upsert_link). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.
Four tools are reasonable for a link management server, covering core operations. It is slightly under-scoped as it lacks a tool for retrieving or listing links, which is a common need, but the count is appropriate for basic CRUD functionality.
There are notable gaps in the tool surface. The server covers create, update, delete, and upsert operations but lacks a get_link or list_links tool for retrieving links, which is essential for full lifecycle management. This omission could lead to agent failures when trying to access existing links.
Create and manage short links, track clicks, and automate URL management
Create short links, QR codes, UTM templates, vCards, and landing pages from your AI assistant.
Short links with QR, custom domains and bot-free click analytics. Create, edit, delete, analyze.
Free URL shortener: manage short links, QR codes and click analytics from AI clients.
