get_site_linksGet electron.dance's public community/social links (WhatsApp, Instagram, SoundCloud, DJ Cards, mixes, Listen/Navidrome, SMS bot, gigs page). Open to anyone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It openly states the tool is public and accessible to anyone, and lists the contained link types. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but for a read-only public links getter, this is acceptable transparency.
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, well-structured sentence. It includes the domain, the scope, and a concrete list of examples without any repetition or extraneous words.
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 no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers what the tool does, who can use it, and what links are included. It is complete for its intended simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 states the tool retrieves electron.dance's public community/social links and enumerates specific types (WhatsApp, Instagram, SoundCloud, etc.). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on tracks and gigs.
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 description notes 'Open to anyone' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like get_top_tracks or list_upcoming_gigs. The usage context is implied by the listed content, but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: site links, Spotify top tracks, gig listings, and RSVP management. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, rsvp_to_), using clear, predictable naming. The use of both 'get' and 'list' for retrieval is still consistent and intuitive.
With only four tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core actions for the electron.dance domain. Each tool is necessary and there is no bloat or redundancy.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the exposed functionality: retrieving public info (links, tracks, events) and performing an action (RSVP). For a specialized server, this is a complete surface without notable gaps.