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. While it mentions that the tool 'Returns the created link with its short URL,' it fails to address critical behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a creation tool with 23 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value. Every word serves a clear function with zero redundancy, making it efficiently front-loaded 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 complexity (23 parameters, creation operation) and absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like beyond 'the created link with its short URL,' nor does it cover error handling, permissions, or system constraints. For a tool with this many configuration options, more contextual information 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'The destination URL for the link (required)'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 Linkly short link') and resource ('short link'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_link' or 'delete_link' beyond the creation aspect, 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 'update_link' for modifying existing links or 'list_links' for viewing. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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