Create a short URL from a destination and add optional UTM tracking parameters so you can track campaign performance in your analytics.
Create a short URL. Optional UTM fields are merged without overwriting existing utm_* params.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| utm_term | No | ||
| utm_medium | No | ||
| utm_source | No | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| utm_content | No | ||
| utm_campaign | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing UTM merge semantics ('merged without overwriting existing utm_* params'), a non-obvious behavior. It does not cover slug collision handling, required auth, or error behavior.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary merge detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of required and key optional parameters, conflict/error behavior, and any indication of what the response contains.
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?
With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it only touches the utm_* family generically. The required 'destination', plus 'slug' and 'note', are never explained, so the agent must guess whether slug is custom or auto-generated and what note is for.
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Create a short URL'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling shorten_urls (plural), leaving the agent to infer that this one creates a single link.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus shorten_urls or the other link-management siblings. The second sentence describes merge behavior, not usage context or prerequisites, so an agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.