tag_bookmarkAttach tags to a bookmark and automatically create any missing tags, helping organize saved pages and notes for easier retrieval.
Attach tags to a bookmark. Tags that don't exist yet are created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | Yes | Tag names, e.g. ['python', 'to read']. | |
| 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?
The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the side effect that unknown tags are auto-created, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to predict the call's consequences. It stops short of saying whether existing tags are preserved or replaced, which is the one behavior still missing.
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, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the side effect immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The remaining gap is whether tagging merges with or overwrites existing tags on the bookmark, which matters for a mutation tool but is partly resolved by the idempotentHint and the 'attach' phrasing.
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 inline descriptions including an example array for tags, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the semantic that tag names may reference not-yet-existing tags, which is useful but marginal beyond the schema baseline.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Attach tags to a bookmark.' It is clearly distinct from untag_bookmark and update_bookmark by name and action, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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 by the verb 'attach' — an agent can infer this is the additive counterpart to untag_bookmark, but the description never states when to use this versus update_bookmark or add_to_list, nor any prerequisites such as valid bookmark ownership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.