bunpro-mcp

add_bookmark

Save a grammar point or vocabulary item to your Bunpro bookmarks for later review.

Instructions

Bookmark a Bunpro item for later review.

Tool call template

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": {
      "reviewable_id": "<reviewable_id>",
      "reviewable_type": "<reviewable_type>"
    },
    "name": "add_bookmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reviewable_id`	Yes	ID of the item to bookmark
`reviewable_type`	Yes	Type of item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose, lacking details on idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if already bookmarked), authentication requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence, 8 words, which is concise but lacks detail. It is front-loaded but at the expense of completeness. Balanced at 3 for being appropriately brief yet underinformative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's role more thoroughly. It omits context like the effect on SRS, reversibility, or what 'later review' means. Covers basic purpose but leaves significant gaps.

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%, with both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 phrase 'Bookmark a Bunpro item for later review' clearly states the action (bookmark) and resource (Bunpro item). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_bookmark' and 'add_to_reviews' by focusing on bookmarking, which is a unique 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'add_to_reviews' (which adds to review queue) or 'remove_bookmark'. The agent is left without context for choosing among related actions.

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