Bookmark a URL with a short alias keyword to enable quick retrieval later, with optional tags, title, project scope, and notes.
Store a URL bookmark with an alias keyword for quick retrieval
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | URL to bookmark (required) | |
| tags | No | Additional tags | |
| alias | No | Short keyword alias for fast retrieval | |
| title | No | Human-readable title (defaults to URL) | |
| project | No | Project scope (optional) | |
| summary | No | Optional description or notes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 states that a bookmark is stored, but does not mention persistence semantics, duplicate or alias collision handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
The description is a single, waste-free sentence with the core verb and resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain behavior, side effects, and expected outcome. The current sentence is too thin for an agent to confidently understand the full contract of storing a bookmark.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions URL and alias but does not add syntax, format, or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Store a URL bookmark" with an alias keyword. This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_link, search_links, and list_links, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from save_entry or save_entry_ref.
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 phrase "for quick retrieval" implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_entry, save_entry_ref, or save_artifact. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.