Linkly MCP Server

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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or what happens when only some fields are provided. For a complex mutation tool with 22 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with extensive schema documentation and follows good front-loading principles by stating the core action immediately.

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 complex mutation tool with 22 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when you update a link, what the response looks like, error conditions, or how partial updates work. The combination of high complexity and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context than provided.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 22 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 Linkly link by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_link' or 'update_domain_favicon', but the specificity about updating links by ID provides good clarity.

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 'create_link' or 'get_link'. It mentions the required 'link_id' parameter but doesn't explain prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for updating versus creating new links.

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