pbir_list_bookmarksRetrieves all bookmarks defined in a Power BI report, letting you inventory saved view states before editing report navigation or automating page and filter changes.
List all bookmarks defined in the report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| _cache | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| bookmarks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it's a read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond what annotations and output schema provide, which is adequate but not exemplary.
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, short sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but could potentially add a note about the output without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. No missing elements are apparent.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info. Baseline 4 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists all bookmarks in the report, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that add, rename, or delete bookmarks.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbir_add_bookmark or pbir_delete_bookmark. There is no mention of the context (e.g., enumerating bookmarks before modification) or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.