Retrieves a site-specific link-building playbook: required link type, prerequisites, ordered actions with exact button names, and which action places the link.
The method for one site: playbook for its link type, what it requires, the ordered actions with exact button names, and which action places the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content of the response but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication/upgrade, has side effects, or how errors are handled.
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 sentence with no filler and captures the core output components. It is reasonably front-loaded, though the dense clause structure makes it slightly less scannable than it could be.
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 one-parameter read-style tool, the description conveys the essential output contents. However, it omits how slug should be supplied/resolved, whether account or upgrade state is relevant, and what the actual response shape is, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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?
The schema has one parameter, slug, with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'one site', implying slug identifies the site, but it does not explain slug format, how to obtain it, or validation expectations. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.
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 indicates the tool returns a site-specific method/playbook, including link type, requirements, ordered actions, and the action that places the link. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like build_link or verify_link, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.
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?
No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as build_link or verify_link. The phrase 'for one site' weakly implies the slug parameter selects a site, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.