collection_set_emojiSet or clear an emoji marker on a collection to personalize its label and make it easier to identify among multiple notebooks.
Set or clear the emoji marker on a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emoji | Yes | Emoji character (use empty string "" to clear) | |
| collection_id | Yes | UUID of the collection |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.2Input schema / properties / collection_id / descriptionAdded value: +"UUID of the collection"Input schema / properties / emoji / descriptionAdded value: +"Emoji character (use empty string \"\" to clear)"v0.9.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or idempotency for a mutating tool, leaving important behavioral context unstated.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
With only two fully documented parameters and an output schema available, the description and schema together are sufficient for correct invocation. The main omission is behavioral context, but the tool's simple scope keeps this from being a major gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters, including the empty-string clear behavior for emoji. The description does not add meaning beyond this, 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 uses a specific verb ('set or clear') with a specific resource ('the emoji marker on a collection'), making the tool's function unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_edit, which would handle other collection properties.
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 gives clear context: use this tool exactly when you need to set or clear a collection's emoji marker. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is self-contained enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.