Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_get_users_bookmarks_by_folder_id

Get all bookmarks in a specified folder by supplying the folder ID. Read-only operation returns the bookmarked tweets from the X API for the selected user.

Instructions

Get Bookmarks by folder ID. Use when: Get Bookmarks by folder ID. Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. Risk: read-only. Required permissions and prerequisites: OAuth 2 user token with scopes bookmark.read, tweet.read, users.read Environment-selection behavior: scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId choose the Vault/Postgres tenant principal used for auth resolution. credentialKey selects a non-default stored credential profile when present. Parameter formats and constraints: id (path, unknown, required); folder_id (path, unknown, required). Expected response shape: { ok, status, data: { method, path, url, status, contentType, authType, data } } Common failure conditions: missing scoped credentials in Vault, missing required API parameters, X API auth failures, rate limits, or unsupported multipart/body shape. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools: x_connection_info, x_schema_discovery, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request. Safety warnings: This is read-only, but responses can still include sensitive account data depending on granted scopes. Example: {"name":"x_api_get_users_bookmarks_by_folder_id","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default","id":""}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
folder_idYes
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only risk, required OAuth scopes (bookmark.read, tweet.read, users.read), environment-selection behavior for auth resolution, expected response shape, common failure conditions including rate limits, and safety warnings about sensitive data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is organized into labeled sections (Risk, Permissions, Environment, Parameters, Response, Failures, Tools, Safety, Example) but has redundancy: 'Get Bookmarks by folder ID' appears in both the first sentence and 'Use when', and read-only is mentioned in both Risk and Safety. It is somewhat verbose but structured.

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?

The description covers many contextual aspects: response shape, common failure conditions, auth prerequisites, and recommended tools. However, parameter semantics are incomplete, and the example is flawed by omitting a required parameter. Given 8 parameters and no output schema, this is only moderately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only names id and folder_id with 'path, unknown, required' without explaining their actual meaning. It partially explains scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey in environment-selection behavior, but omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType entirely. The example also incorrectly omits the required folder_id parameter.

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 opens with 'Get Bookmarks by folder ID' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_bookmarks (all bookmarks) and x_api_get_users_bookmark_folders (list folders).

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?

The 'Use when' section is a tautological restatement of the purpose. The 'Do not use when' provides some exclusions (exploration, needing auth/config tools first) and recommends x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling bookmark-fetching tools (e.g., x_api_get_users_bookmarks).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LesterAJohn/X-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server