get_linkRetrieve an active deep link by slug to inspect its destination, fallback URLs, tags, expiry, and shortened URL.
Get one active link by slug: destination, fallbacks, tags, expiry and its shortUrl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The link's slug: the part after the link domain, e.g. `summer` in https://hilltop.strait.link/summer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail — only active links are returned — but says nothing about not-found behavior or what happens for paused/deactivated slugs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload fields without filler; every clause carries information.
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?
With only one well-documented parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient — enumerating returned fields (destination, fallbacks, tags, expiry, shortUrl) compensates well for the absent output schema. Missing only failure/empty-result behavior for unknown or inactive slugs.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the slug parameter already carries a pattern and a concrete URL example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by slug' and adds no format or edge-case meaning.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Get one active link by slug') plus the returned field set make the operation unambiguous and clearly distinct from list_links/search_links, which return many. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so not a 5.
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?
The phrase 'one active link' implies this is the single-record lookup and hints that non-active links won't be returned, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to search_links/check_link for other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.