zaytsv-bot-graph-mcp

list_links

List all starting tracking links for a bot with UTM parameters, labels, and launch counts. Identify funnel entry points.

Instructions

Стартовые (трекинговые) ссылки бота с UTM (GET /api/bots/{botId}/links): code, метки, число стартов. Это точки входа в воронку. Read-only.

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": {
      "botId": "<botId>"
    },
    "name": "list_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`botId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and explicitly states 'Read-only' and the GET method, signaling non-mutating behavior. It also discloses the return fields (code, labels, number of starts). It does not mention pagination or auth, but for a straightforward list tool these omissions are acceptable.

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 highly concise, combining the resource, endpoint, return fields, functional context, and safety note in two short sentences. Every element adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns (code, labels, starts count), the type of data (tracking links with UTM), and the read-only nature. It could mention pagination or response format, but the description is sufficient for most use cases.

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 0%, but the only parameter botId is self-explanatory. The description refers to 'ссылки бота' (links of the bot), indicating botId identifies the bot. However, it does not elaborate on where to obtain botId or any constraints, leaving some burden unmet.

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 identifies the tool as listing starting/tracking links for a bot, specifying the resource scope (links), the HTTP method (GET), and distinct characteristics (UTM, funnel entry points). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_graphs and list_channels by focusing on links and their role in funnels.

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 states that these links are points of entry into the funnel, giving clear context on when to use the tool (for accessing bot tracking links). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the functional context is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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