Retrieve the authenticated user's short links to review or manage created URLs and their associated data.
List the authenticated user's short links.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_links"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are scoped to the authenticated user (implying an auth requirement), but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or ordering for what is likely a long list.
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 short sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though so terse that it edges toward under-specification rather than maximal helpfulness.
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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum hint at the return shape or pagination behavior, since the agent cannot learn it elsewhere. It is functionally adequate but leaves the response contract completely unspecified.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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?
Clear specific verb (List) plus resource (short links) and a scope qualifier (the authenticated user's). It is easy to understand, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_link_stats or get_analytics, which an agent must choose between based on the same resource.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this is the right tool for enumerating links versus fetching analytics or stats, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.