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 implies a mutation operation ('Unsubscribe') but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, or if it's idempotent. For a tool that likely modifies state, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output, which are needed 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('link_id' and 'url'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationship between parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Unsubscribe') and the target ('a webhook URL from a specific link's click events'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unsubscribe_webhook' or 'subscribe_link_webhook', which would require mentioning scope or context differences for 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 'unsubscribe_webhook' or 'subscribe_link_webhook', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing subscription. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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