Convert long URLs into compact api.agishub.com/s/ links that redirect to the original address. These links remain valid for one year.
Shorten a long URL into a compact api.agishub.com/s/ link that redirects to the original. Codes are stored for a year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The long http/https URL to shorten. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful traits beyond the basic action: the short link redirects to the original, and codes are stored for a year. It does not mention potential side effects like duplicate handling, but for a simple URL shortener the core behavior is transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, output, and retention period. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The definition is complete for a one-parameter tool with no output schema: it states what the tool does, what the resulting link looks like, and how long codes persist. The return value is implied clearly as the compact link, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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%, so the input schema already fully documents the only parameter (url), including its format and expected scheme. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Shorten') and resource ('a long URL'), and specifies the output format ('api.agishub.com/s/<code> link that redirects to the original'). It is unmistakably distinct from all sibling tools, none of which perform URL shortening.
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 context is clear: this tool is for shortening http/https URLs, which is sufficient given the absence of any related sibling tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but no close alternatives exist among the listed siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.