list_linksRetrieve account links newest first, ten per page, with filters for search, tag, kind, and status. Pass the returned cursor to fetch the next page.
The account's links, newest first, ten a page. Pass nextCursor back as cursor for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search the short code, destination and paid title. | |
| tag | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds real behavior the agent could not otherwise know: result ordering ('newest first'), a concrete page size (ten), and the cursor round-trip contract. This is meaningful value beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about what a link object contains or whether filters affect pagination.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the most important fact (what the collection is plus its ordering) is front-loaded before the pagination mechanic. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, five parameters, and low schema coverage, the definition should say more. It covers pagination well and the read-only nature is handled by annotations, but it never characterizes the returned link items or explains the filter parameters, leaving the agent to infer the tool's full capability.
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 only 20% (just q is documented), so the description must compensate and largely fails to: tag, kind, status and the enum meanings are left entirely to the schema. It does give cursor an operational meaning via the nextCursor round-trip, which is one useful addition out of five parameters.
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 names the resource and its scope precisely ('The account's links') and adds ordering ('newest first') plus page size, which implies a paginated collection read distinct from the sibling get_link. It stops short of an explicit verb and never contrasts itself with list_vault or the filtering siblings.
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?
There is procedural guidance for continuing pagination ('Pass nextCursor back as cursor for the next page'), which is genuinely useful. However, nothing says when to call this versus get_link for a single link, or how the q/tag/kind/status filters should be combined to narrow results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.