Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hookmark MCP Server

Hookmark MCP Server

by mnott
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

hookmark_remove

Remove bidirectional links between two items in Hookmark by specifying their file paths or URLs. This action deletes the connection from both directions.

Instructions

Remove a bidirectional hook between two items. Both items must be referenced by their file path, URL, or hook:// URL. This removes the link from both directions — after this call neither item will appear in the other's hook list.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_a": "<item_a>",
      "item_b": "<item_b>"
    },
    "name": "hookmark_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_aYesFirst item: absolute file path, URL, or hook:// URL
item_bYesSecond item: absolute file path, URL, or hook:// URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the mutation behavior ('removes the link from both directions') and the outcome ('after this call neither item will appear in the other's hook list'), which is crucial for a destructive operation. It doesn't mention error conditions or permissions, but provides solid behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose and requirements, the second explains the bidirectional effect. There's no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 does well by explaining the action, requirements, and bidirectional effect. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or confirmation messages, which would be helpful given the destructive nature. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters as file paths, URLs, or hook:// URLs. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing that 'both items must be referenced by their file path, URL, or hook:// URL,' which is already covered in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove a bidirectional hook between two items') and the resource involved ('bidirectional hook'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hookmark_connect (create) or hookmark_list (read). It provides precise information about what the tool does beyond just the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Remove a bidirectional hook between two items') and specifies that both items must be referenced by file path, URL, or hook:// URL. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings like hookmark_unlink or hookmark_disconnect if they existed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools