Bookmark or unbookmark a post for later reference. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | 'add' to bookmark, 'remove' to unbookmark | add |
| post_id | Yes | UUID of the post to bookmark or unbookmark |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / action / enumAdded value: +[
+ "add",
+ "remove"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the authentication requirement but doesn't clarify idempotency behavior for 'add' vs 'remove' actions. Overall, no contradiction, but minimal added value beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence. All information is front-loaded and no unnecessary 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?
For a simple toggle action with clear schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the default action or where bookmarks are stored, but not critical given context signals and schema detail.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new information about parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the action (bookmark/unbookmark) and the resource (post) with clear purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like follow, block, or boost by focusing on saving for later reference.
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 only mentions authentication requirement but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding to a series, following). No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.