Retrieve a profile or document link by network name. Provide a network name like LinkedIn or GitHub to get the matching URL from your CV.
Return a profile or document link by network name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Network name (e.g. 'LinkedIn', 'GitHub', 'Google Scholar', 'Twitter', 'CV PDF'). Use list_links() to see all available. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a profile or document link and selects by network name, which is useful but does not disclose error handling, missing-name behavior, or any edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes to the core meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values or safety. It could be slightly more complete by naming relevant siblings, but nothing essential is missing for calling it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%: the single 'name' parameter is described with concrete examples and a pointer to list_links. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns a profile or document link based on a network name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_links or get_cv_pdf_link, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The parameter description provides a useful hint: 'Use list_links() to see all available.' This implies the discovery flow when the caller doesn't know valid names, but the tool description itself does not explicitly state when to use get_link versus the many sibling link-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.