Linkly MCP Server

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 'Adds' a domain, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. The prerequisite about domain configuration is helpful but insufficient 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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow with a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), expected outcomes, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective use in an AI agent context.

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 'name' parameter clearly documented as 'The domain name (e.g., 'links.example.com')'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Add a custom domain') and the resource ('to the workspace'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_domains' or 'update_domain_favicon' beyond the obvious verb difference, which keeps it from 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 a prerequisite ('The domain must be configured to point to Linkly's servers'), which offers some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_domains' or 'update_domain_favicon', and doesn't mention any exclusions or complementary tools, leaving gaps in practical application.

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