bowrd_get_entryRetrieves detailed information for a single pin or entry using its numerical ID or UUID, so you can inspect a specific visual bookmark by identifier.
Retrieve detailed information about a single pin/entry by its ID or UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | The numerical ID or UUID string of the entry |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already makes clear this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'detailed information' for one entry, but does not describe error behavior, what fields are included, or any authorization requirements beyond what the annotation provides.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb, resource, and lookup key are presented immediately.
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 one-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what 'detailed information' includes or how missing entries are handled, but those gaps are minor.
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 the entry_id parameter is already documented as a numerical ID or UUID string. The description reinforces that lookup is by ID or UUID, but adds no syntax, format, or resolution details beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve detailed information about a single pin/entry by its ID or UUID.' It distinguishes this from list/search siblings by emphasizing a single entry looked up by identifier, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.
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 implies the appropriate use case: fetching one known entry by ID or UUID. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of bowrd_search_entries or bowrd_list_entries, nor does it mention prerequisites such as first resolving an ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.