Xbitto MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Link

get_link

Read-only

Retrieve a short link's paywall settings and details by short code, so you can inspect access rules before sharing or managing it.

Instructions

One link with its paywall settings.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "get_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The link's short code (the part after the domain).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description adds only that paywall settings are included. It does not mention error behavior, authentication, or what fields the returned link contains. Minimal added 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Five words, no filler. However, the fragment omits a verb and could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Still efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with a fully documented parameter and readOnly annotation, the description conveys the return focus (link + paywall settings). But with no output schema, it doesn't list returned fields or mention not-found behavior. Adequate but with 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single 'code' parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource ('One link') and highlights an included aspect ('its paywall settings'), but it is a noun phrase without a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'. It distinguishes from list_links by singular but does not explicitly name siblings or state the action.

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 versus alternatives such as list_links or get_vault_item. The description provides no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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