Add a bookmark to a specified folder or staging box; capacity quota checks block full locations and return a clear message.
向指定文件夹或暂存箱添加新书签。内置严格的容量配额预检与拦截机制，书签容量满或暂存箱满时将精准拦截并告知用户。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 网页链接，必须以 http:// 或 https:// 开头 | |
| icon | No | 网站图标 URL (可选) | |
| info | No | 书签备注或简介 (0-500字符) | |
| title | Yes | 书签标题/网站名称 (1-100字符) | |
| folder_id | No | 目标文件夹 ID。填 0 或不填则存入暂存箱 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a quota pre-check and blocking behavior when the folder or staging box is full, which is valuable. It does not mention auth requirements, whether duplicate URLs are allowed, or what happens on success.
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 front-loaded and compact, stating the action first and the quota behavior second. The second sentence is slightly verbose but every part earns its place by explaining the interception behavior.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key quota blocking behavior and folder targeting. It still leaves gaps around permissions, duplicate handling, and post-creation response, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 schema already defines all five parameters. The description reinforces the folder vs. staging box behavior but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: adding a new bookmark to a specified folder or the staging box. It does not explicitly distinguish this single-create operation from the sibling tool ilinks_batch_create_bookmarks, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by '向指定文件夹或暂存箱添加新书签', which tells the agent this is for creating a single bookmark and that omitting the folder targets the staging box. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus ilinks_batch_create_bookmarks or ilinks_update_bookmark.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.