Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
whamlink-mcp

whamlink-mcp

by billkinddev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_link_access

Update a link's visibility, password, email list, network allowance, or title to control access.

Instructions

Change a link's access: visibility (public/private/password/email), password, shared email list, allowNetwork, or title.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "set_link_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
titleNo
passwordNo
visibilityNo
shareEmailsNo
allowNetworkNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'change' implying mutation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., password behavior when visibility changes), immediacy of changes, or authorization requirements. The inclusion of 'title' as an access parameter is misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence listing key parameters without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. A more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, behavioral effects, interaction with sibling tools, and the required 'id' parameter's role. The grouping of properties is partially helpful but leaves important gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description names parameters (visibility, password, shareEmails as 'shared email list', allowNetwork, title) but does not explain constraints (e.g., password minLength, visibility enum values) or the required 'id' parameter. It adds some semantic grouping but insufficient detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'change' and resource 'link's access', listing specific properties. However, including 'title' among access properties may cause confusion. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_link' but not 'publish_link'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'publish_link' or 'delete_link'. No conditions, prerequisites, or context are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools