@lodd/mcp-server

create_trackable_link

Create campaign-attributed links by appending tracking codes to URLs, enabling source attribution in analytics.

Instructions

Create a trackable link for campaign attribution. Append ?ld= to your destination URL when sharing — clicks are attributed to the source in analytics.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "destination_url": "<destination_url>",
      "source_type": "<source_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_trackable_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	Yes	Site domain or UUID
`label`	No	Human-readable label for this link
`source_type`	Yes	Traffic source platform
`destination_url`	Yes	The URL the link should redirect to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.15Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. It only states the basic creation action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant words. Highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and four parameters, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., generated link code) or provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the full workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The mention of appending ?ld=<code> is a usage note, not a parameter detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'trackable link' with the purpose 'campaign attribution'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_trackable_links and get_link_clicks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides guidance on how to use the tool (append ?ld=<code> to destination URL) and its purpose (clicks attributed to source). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.