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 'Export' but doesn't specify the output format (e.g., CSV, JSON), whether it's a file download or data stream, or any rate limits or permissions required. The mention of 'full information' hints at comprehensive data but lacks operational details.

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 action and key details. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from field listings for better readability.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical information about the export format, data volume, error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering capabilities through 'detailed click records' and listing fields like 'country' and 'platform', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond what the schema already covers.

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 verb ('Export') and resource ('detailed click records'), and specifies the scope with 'full information' listing key fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_clicks' or 'get_analytics', which might offer similar click data but potentially with different formats or filtering capabilities.

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 'get_clicks' or 'get_analytics'. It mentions 'full information' but doesn't clarify if this is for bulk exports, reports, or other specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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