qr-maker

update_link

Modify existing short links by updating target URLs, adjusting status, or setting expiration dates. Disable links to stop redirects while preserving QR codes.

Instructions

Update a short link — change target URL, status, or expiration. Set status to "disabled" to deactivate without deleting. The QR code continues to work but redirects will stop.

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": {
      "link_id": "<link_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`link_id`	Yes	The short link ID or code to update
`target_url`	No	New target URL
`status`	No	Link status
`expires_at`	No	Expiration date (ISO 8601) or null to remove expiry
`folder_id`	No	Folder ID or null to remove from folder

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the effect of disabling a link ('The QR code continues to work but redirects will stop'), which goes beyond basic update semantics. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions that would be important for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key updatable fields, and the second provides important behavioral context about disabling links. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core update functionality and a key behavioral nuance (disabled status effects), but lacks information on response format, error handling, or prerequisites like authentication. Given the complexity, it's minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'target URL, status, or expiration' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant meaning beyond it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Update a short link') and the resources that can be modified ('change target URL, status, or expiration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_link or get_link. It provides concrete examples of what can be updated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool for updating link properties, including a specific use case ('Set status to "disabled" to deactivate without deleting'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., delete_link for permanent removal), which prevents a perfect score.

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