Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sape-mcp

sape-mcp

by sshra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_url_links

Retrieve links for a specific URL with their statuses to inspect placement details and monitor link activity.

Instructions

Ссылки конкретного URL-а с их статусами.

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": {
      "url_id": "<url_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_url_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
url_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions/auth requirements, pagination, result volume, or what 'statuses' mean or which values they take. Only the existence of an output schema partly covers the return shape, which keeps this above a 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The brevity works against it only in that so little is stated, but there is no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the minimum needed is present, but the description is silent on how to source url_id and on the meaning of statuses. It is adequate rather than complete, and the Russian text amid English tool names adds a small extra parsing burden.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter url_id, so the description must compensate and does not: it only implies that the id refers to a URL, without saying where to obtain it, whether it is the internal id from list_urls, or what happens with an invalid id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence identifies the resource ('Ссылки конкретного URL-а') and adds that statuses are included, which goes slightly beyond restating the name get_url_links. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings like get_url_anchors or get_project_links, so an agent must infer the scope difference itself.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many sibling listing tools (list_urls, get_url_anchors, get_project_links). The agent is left to guess that this is the per-URL link lookup as opposed to the project-level one.

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