A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceEnables creation and management of short links with custom slugs, QR repointing, and cookieless analytics from any MCP client.
MIT
tollbooth-shortlinks
Server Details
Ephemeral, human-friendly short URLs for Tollbooth MCP services
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lonniev/tollbooth-shortlinks
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- tollbooth-shortlinks
Available Tools
4 toolscreate_shortlinkAInspect
Create an ephemeral short URL that expires after 24 hours.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The target URL to redirect to. | |
| slug | No | Optional custom slug. If omitted, a memorable phrase is generated (e.g. ``brave-otter-finds-gold``). |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-obvious trait: the URL is ephemeral and expires after 24 hours. It does not discuss slug conflicts or error handling, but the most important behavioral constraint is explicitly surfaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and immediately followed by the essential qualifier. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter create operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and the only notable behavioral constraint (expiration). Missing conflict-handling details are minor and not needed to select or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both url and slug are already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the semantic weight, matching the high-coverage baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('short URL'), and adds the defining qualifier 'ephemeral ... expires after 24 hours'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools delete_shortlink, resolve_shortlink, and shortlink_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly establishes the context: use this when you need a temporary short URL that self-expires. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the create-vs-manage distinction among siblings is obvious enough that an agent can infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete_shortlinkBInspect
Delete a shortlink before it expires.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The shortlink slug to delete. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that deletion happens but does not mention irreversibility, effects on related data, or what happens if the slug is already expired or nonexistent. 'Before it expires' hints at a temporal constraint but does not explain it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded, and the temporal qualifier is brief. It is minimal but readable and appropriately sized for a one-parameter deletion tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is minimally sufficient to invoke, but it lacks important context about destructive effects and expiration behavior. The description does not fully cover what an agent should expect when deleting or when deletion is no longer possible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'slug' is documented in the schema as 'The shortlink slug to delete.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a shortlink'), and is easily distinguished from the sibling tools create_shortlink, resolve_shortlink, and shortlink_status. The phrase 'before it expires' adds a scoping constraint without obscuring the core action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or conditions provided. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the word 'Delete', not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_shortlinkAInspect
Look up where a slug points without redirecting.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The shortlink slug to resolve. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior, 'without redirecting', indicating a non-mutating lookup. However, it does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or what happens for unknown slugs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to purpose or behavior, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context an agent needs. It is slightly thin only in not explicitly distinguishing itself from shortlink_status, but it is otherwise complete for a simple lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the slug parameter is already fully documented. The description only restates that the slug is resolved and adds no format or syntax detail, matching the baseline for well-covered schema parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('where a slug points'), and a behavioral boundary ('without redirecting'). This cleanly differentiates it from create_shortlink, delete_shortlink, and shortlink_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use this when you need to know where a slug points rather than creating, deleting, or checking the status of a shortlink. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended usage is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
shortlink_statusAInspect
Health check — shows the number of active shortlinks and TTL.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Health check' and 'shows' clearly convey a non-mutating, read-only operation and disclose what is returned. It does not address auth or freshness, but for a simple status tool the behavior is adequately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: 'Health check' sets the intent, and 'number of active shortlinks and TTL' specifies the exact output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless health-check tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool reports; the only minor gap is not elaborating on what TTL represents or when to prefer this tool, but these are not blocking for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, no additional parameter explanation is required, and the description still clarifies the tool's output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('shows') and a clear resource ('shortlinks'), scoped to active shortlinks and TTL. The 'health check' framing makes it obviously distinct from the create/delete/resolve siblings without needing to name them.
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?
Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for health/status monitoring rather than creating, deleting, or resolving shortlinks. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
- First observed
create_shortlink - First observed
delete_shortlink - First observed
resolve_shortlink - First observed
shortlink_status
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Create and manage short links, track clicks, and automate URL management
Make and manage short links on your own domain, with analytics and routing rules.
Create, manage and measure short links: branded domains, cookie-less analytics and QR codes
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables URL shortening and management through MCP, allowing creation of short links with optional tags and expiry, search, and stats.111MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceFree URL shortener with a hosted MCP server. Create, update, and bulk-create short links with custom aliases and QR codes, and read click analytics (countries, cities, devices, browsers, referrers, UTM) from Claude, Cursor, or any MCP client. Unlimited links on the free plan; read-only and write scopes are assigned per API key.1-
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for opn.onl, the open-source self-hostable URL shortener. Shorten links, read click analytics, generate branded QR codes, and manage links — against the hosted service or your own instance.24482MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool maps to a distinct operation: creation, deletion, resolution, and health/status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (create_shortlink, delete_shortlink, resolve_shortlink). shortlink_status breaks the pattern slightly by leading with the noun, but it remains predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools cover the essential operations for an ephemeral shortlink service without unnecessary bulk. Each tool has a clear purpose.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle is covered: create, resolve, delete, and status. There is no update operation, but shortlinks are ephemeral and immutable, so that is not a meaningful gap. A list of individual links could be a minor addition, but the surface is complete for its purpose.