remove_from_listRemoves a bookmark from a specified list without deleting the bookmark itself, so you can reorganize saved items while preserving them.
Remove a bookmark from a list. The bookmark itself is kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | List id or exact list name. | |
| bookmark_id | Yes | Bookmark id from another tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that the bookmark record is preserved, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would worry about here; it does not cover what happens if the bookmark is absent from the list.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the effect statement is front-loaded before the clarifying detail. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, this is nearly sufficient; the only real gap is the no-op behavior when the bookmark is not already on the list.
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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the note that list accepts an id or exact name. The description contributes nothing beyond that, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a bookmark from a list'), and the follow-up clarifies scope by noting the bookmark itself survives, which implicitly contrasts with delete_bookmark. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so 4 rather than 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the inverse of add_to_list and a non-destructive alternative to delete_bookmark, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as the bookmark needing to already be on the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.