get-resource-linksFetch up to ten resource links pointing to different resource types to test MCP client resource handling. Set count (1-10) to limit results.
Returns up to ten resource links that reference different types of resources
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of resource links to return (1-10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'up to ten' and 'different types of resources', giving some behavioral context but not deep detail on output format, ordering, or edge cases.
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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every word is purposeful. It avoids verbosity and repetition of schema details.
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?
Given the simple signature (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the return type (list of resource links) and the limit. However, it does not describe the structure of individual links, which could be a minor gap for an agent needing to parse the results.
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 only parameter, count, has a description in the schema covering range and default. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the upper limit, so it relies on the schema's parameter documentation.
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 the action (Returns), the object (resource links), and the scope (up to ten, different types). It differentiates from siblings like get-resource-reference by emphasizing a collection of varied links.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-resource-reference. The phrase 'different types' implies a general-purpose use, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or pointers to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.