List all webhook URLs subscribed to a specific link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_id | Yes | The ID of the link |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "results"
-]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "items": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description does not mention whether the list is paginated, ordered, or includes any limitations, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description is adequate for a basic listing operation but lacks any guidance on distinguishing from similar siblings (e.g., list_webhooks). Given the context, it is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; the parameter 'link_id' is already described as 'The ID of the link'. No further elaboration is provided.
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?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'webhook URLs', and the scope 'subscribed to a specific link'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_webhooks (which likely lists all webhooks without a link filter) and the subscribe/unsubscribe operations.
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?
Usage guidelines are implied but not explicit. The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus list_webhooks (e.g., when you need webhooks for a specific link) or mention any prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_links` and `search_links`, and between the several analytics/click tools. However, descriptions clarify their differences, reducing ambiguity.
Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun pattern, but `batchDeleteLinks` uses camelCase, breaking consistency. Additionally, `ping` and `test_authentication` deviate from the resource-based naming.
25 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for the scope, covering links, domains, analytics, webhooks, and workspace management. Each tool has a clear role, though the count could be slightly reduced by merging some analytics tools.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for links and domains, analytics (raw and aggregated), webhook management, workspace settings, and authentication checks. No obvious gaps for a URL shortening service.