Lists the current user's bookmarks, optionally filtered by folder ID (use 0 for the staging box), with limit and offset pagination.
查看当前用户的书签列表。支持按文件夹 ID 过滤，或查看暂存箱 (folder_id=0)。支持分页限制 limit 与 offset。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 单次返回数量 (默认 50) | |
| offset | No | 偏移量 (默认 0) | |
| folder_id | No | 文件夹 ID。传 0 则仅查看暂存箱，不传则查看全部书签 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing, but says nothing about result ordering, whether a total count is returned, permission requirements, or what happens with large result sets beyond the limit/offset params already in the schema.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, the temp-box special case grouped with filtering. Nothing padded, though the pagination sentence largely echoes the schema.
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, no-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It still leaves open the default behavior with no folder_id, result ordering, and how it differs from the search sibling.
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 three params are already documented, including folder_id=0 meaning temp box only. The description restates that same semantics without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 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 names a specific verb and resource — viewing the current user's bookmark list — and scopes it to the caller's own bookmarks. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ilinks_search_bookmarks, but 'list' vs 'search' is inferable from the wording.
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?
It explains how to filter (by folder_id, or folder_id=0 for the temp box) which implies when to use each mode. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over ilinks_search_bookmarks, nor does it mention prerequisites such as being authenticated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.