kualat-mcp

Delete a link

delete_link

Destructive

Permanently delete a shortened link and its click statistics by link ID. Use to remove links irreversibly when they are no longer needed.

Instructions

Delete a link permanently, together with its click statistics. This cannot be undone.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Link id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the danger profile is pre-declared. The description does add real value beyond them by disclosing the cascade — click statistics are destroyed too — and restating irreversibility, but it says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent id or any permission/auth requirement.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the destructive cascade and closed with the irreversibility constraint. No filler, padding, or repetition of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering safety and schema covering the id, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: irreversibility and collateral data loss. Minor gaps remain around auth requirements and behavior on a missing id, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Link id.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or lookup detail (e.g., where to obtain the id) beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 correct.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource (delete a link) and adds the scope of what else disappears (its click statistics). It is not tautological like the title, and no sibling could be confused with a hard delete of a single link, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with update_link or delete_webhook.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative — for example, pointing at update_link if the agent merely wants to disable a link. The irreversibility warning implies caution but does not route the agent to a safer sibling.

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

Deploy Server