Update an existing link's destination, slug, note, UTM fields, or disabled flag by ID.
Update destination, slug, note, UTM fields, or disabled flag for a link id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| disabled | No | ||
| utm_term | No | ||
| utm_medium | No | ||
| utm_source | No | ||
| destination | No | ||
| 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 supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), lowering the burden. The description's only added signal is the implicit partial-update semantics conveyed by 'or', but it never states explicitly whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, nor what happens on an unknown or invalid id.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the field list is compacted via 'UTM fields' rather than spelled out five times. The trailing 'for a link id' is slightly awkward but costs nothing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns, but for a 10-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage it should say more about partial vs full update behavior, clearing values, and id expectations. It is adequate as a field list but thin as a behavioral contract.
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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it effectively names every mutable parameter (destination, slug, note, utm_* fields, disabled) and identifies id as the key. It stops short of format or validation detail, e.g. whether destination must be a full URL or how slug collisions are handled.
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?
Specific verb (update) plus resource (link) and an enumeration of the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling disable_link even though the description claims it can flip the disabled flag, leaving a routing overlap.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus disable_link, delete_link, or shorten_url, all of which act on links. The reader must infer that this is the general-purpose field editor while the siblings are single-purpose shortcuts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.