Configure or switch the iLinks authentication token when no environment variable is set or you need another account. It validates the token and returns account and capacity details.
设置或切换 iLinks 认证 Token。若未配置环境变量或需要切换账号时使用。设置后会自动验证并返回账号及容量详情。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | 用户的 iLinks 密钥 (js_token)，可在网页控制台个人中心查看并复制 | |
| api_base | No | iLinks API 地址，默认为 https://ilinks.fun |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the setting is automatically verified and returns account and quota details, which signals a network side effect and the response content. It omits where the token is persisted and how invalid-token failures manifest, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the usage condition and post-set behavior following in logical order.
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 a 2-parameter config tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and what comes back (account and quota details). Only the persistence/error behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap.
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%, so both `token` and `api_base` are already documented in the schema with defaults and sourcing hints. The description adds only indirect context via the environment-variable mention; it adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource pair ('设置或切换 iLinks 认证 Token'), which is immediately distinguishable from the bookmark/folder CRUD siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but no sibling performs an auth operation, so ambiguity is minimal.
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?
Gives explicit trigger conditions: '若未配置环境变量或需要切换账号时使用' (when the env var is not configured, or when switching accounts). This is concrete context for invocation, though it does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a token is already configured and valid).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.