create_linkCreate a short link for a destination URL; the destination cannot be changed later, and you can then add a paywall to sell access.
Create a short link to a destination URL. Its destination can never be changed afterwards. To sell it, call set_paywall on it next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetUrl | Yes | The destination, http or https. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical immutability constraint ('Its destination can never be changed afterwards'). However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what the call returns – gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Each sentence carries a distinct payload: what it does, its immutability constraint, and the follow-up tool to call.
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 single-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials, including the irreversible-destination constraint. It doesn't indicate what the response contains (e.g. the generated short link/identifier), which an agent would need since no output schema exists – a minor but real gap.
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?
Only one parameter (targetUrl) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the URI format and http/https constraint. The description's 'destination URL' phrasing adds no meaning beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a short link to a destination URL.' That is immediately distinguishable from the read-side siblings (list_links, get_link) and from the follow-up mutation tool set_paywall without opening any schema.
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?
Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'To sell it, call set_paywall on it next,' which routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or what alternatives exist for other link workflows, so it falls just under a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.