Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
linkbit-mcp

linkbit-mcp

by yutotanakastar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

shorten_urls

Bulk-create short URLs with optional custom slugs and UTM fields to organize and track multiple campaign links in one request.

Instructions

Bulk-create short URLs. Each item may include slug and utm_* fields.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "shorten_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.4

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds no behavioral context: no maximum batch size, no behavior for duplicate slugs, no note on what happens on partial failure, and no output information (no output schema exists).

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action is stated first and the parameter hint second. The brevity comes at the cost of detail, but the structure itself is clean.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a bulk mutation tool with a nested item object, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description omits critical call-time information: the required destination field, batch limits, and failure semantics. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It names 'slug' and the 'utm_*' fields, but omits 'destination' — the sole required field in each item — and gives no format hints for slug or the array structure.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Bulk-create short URLs'), and the word 'Bulk' implicitly separates it from the singular shorten_url sibling. It does not name the sibling outright, but an agent can infer the distinction from the plural name and 'Bulk' qualifier.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'Bulk' implies this is the tool for multiple URLs while shorten_url handles one, but the description never states when to prefer this over the sibling, whether there is a batch-size limit, or whether partial failures are tolerated. Usage is only implied, not guided.

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