Fetch a single bookmark by ID.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_bookmark"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Bookmark UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing further. It does not say what happens when the ID is unknown (empty result vs. error) or whether a deleted bookmark is returned, which is the useful behavioral context an agent would want.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing needs trimming.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, so little is required. Still, the absence of any note on not-found behavior or the returned shape (no output schema exists) leaves a small but real gap.
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% and the single `id` parameter is documented as a UUID in the schema. The phrase "by ID" merely restates that, adding no format, scoping, or source-of-ID detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a single bookmark") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which clearly separates it from list_bookmarks and search_bookmarks. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 is only implied: needing a single bookmark and already holding its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for retrieving bookmarks without an ID.
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.