Skip to main content
Glama
servelink-swyftlabs

serve

by servelink-swyftlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Protect link

protect_link

Protect an owned link by enabling capability token and readable secret protection, returning a share URL and secret code. Optionally specify a label or duration (defaults to 24 hours).

Instructions

Enable capability token and readable secret protection on an owned link (Pro plan required). Returns the share URL (with #cap=...) and the human-readable secret code. If label is omitted, the first owned link returned by links is protected. If ttl is omitted, protection lasts 24 hours. Calling this on an already-protected link replaces the existing credentials, so previous share URLs stop working. To rotate credentials instead, use renew_link; to change only the duration, use update_ttl.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ttlNoOptional protection duration (e.g. 24h, 3d, 7d); defaults to 24 hours.
labelNoLabel of the link to protect (optional; defaults to the first owned link returned by links).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.9
    • changedInput schema / properties / label / description
      Previous value: -"Label of the link to protect (optional; defaults to first active link)."New value: +"Label of the link to protect (optional; defaults to the first owned link returned by links)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / ttl / description
      Previous value: -"Optional duration (e.g. 24h, 3d, 7d)."New value: +"Optional protection duration (e.g. 24h, 3d, 7d); defaults to 24 hours."
  2. First observedv0.8.6

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral side effects not captured by annotations, such as replacing existing credentials and invalidating previous share URLs. It also mentions the Pro plan prerequisite, providing transparency beyond the basic annotations.

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 well-organized and concise, with each sentence contributing meaningful information about functionality, defaults, side effects, and alternatives. It avoids redundant fluff while covering all essential aspects.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (no output schema, simple parameters), the description is complete. It covers the return value (share URL with #cap= and secret code), side effects, prerequisites, defaults, and relationships to sibling tools, leaving no critical context missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining default behaviors tied to omitted parameters (e.g., first owned link used when label is omitted, 24-hour default TTL), which are not fully specified in the schema.

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 tool's purpose: enabling capability token and readable secret protection on an owned link. It uses specific verbs and resource references, and distinguishes itself from similar tools like renew_link and update_ttl by mentioning them as alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit usage guidance is provided: it notes the Pro plan requirement, explains default behavior when labels or TTLs are omitted, and explicitly states when to use this tool versus renew_link (rotate credentials) or update_ttl (change duration).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools