Skip to main content
Glama
o-gent

linkwarden-mcp

by o-gent
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

linkwarden-mcp

An MCP server that wraps the Linkwarden bookmark API in a small set of token-frugal tools. Tool responses are compact plain text (#id name :: url) so listing collections or links costs as few tokens as possible.

Tools

Tool

What it does

list_collections

List collections as #id name (count).

list_links

List links as #id name :: url; optional collection_id, limit.

find_link

Check if a URL already exists (tracking params stripped first).

add_link

Add a link: strips tracking params, skips duplicates, then moves it into a collection.

move_link

Move an existing link to another collection.

delete_link

Delete a link by id.

create_collection

Create a new collection.

Behaviour baked in from experience

  • Tracking params are stripped on add (utm_*, fbclid, gclid, gbraid, gad_source, gad_campaignid, rcm, …); meaningful params like variant and model are kept.

  • Two-step create. Linkwarden ignores collectionId on link creation, so add_link POSTs the link then PUTs it into the target collection.

  • Correct PUT shape. Updates always send id, url, collection.{id,ownerId} and tags, which the API requires.

  • Full-list dedup. Linkwarden caps page size at ~50, so dedup walks every page via cursor pagination rather than trusting a single limit.

Related MCP server: rainkeeper

Configuration

Configuration comes from environment variables — no secret is ever hardcoded:

Variable

Required

Default

Notes

LINKWARDEN_URL

no

http://links.lan

Base URL, no /api/v1.

LINKWARDEN_TOKEN

yes

—

API token (Settings → Access Tokens). Secret.

LINKWARDEN_OWNER_ID

no

1

Owner id used when moving links.

How the token is stored: in production it is supplied by the MCP host via the server config's env block (see below) — it is not read from disk. For local development you may instead copy .env.example to .env and fill in the token; .env is git-ignored and loaded automatically. Host-provided env vars take precedence over .env.

Run

uv sync
uv run linkwarden-mcp   # serves over stdio

Register with an MCP host

Claude Code:

claude mcp add linkwarden -e LINKWARDEN_URL=http://links.lan -e LINKWARDEN_TOKEN=your-token -- uv --directory C:/Users/olive/Github/linkwarden-mcp run linkwarden-mcp

Or Claude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "linkwarden": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["--directory", "C:/Users/olive/Github/linkwarden-mcp", "run", "linkwarden-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "LINKWARDEN_URL": "http://links.lan",
        "LINKWARDEN_TOKEN": "your-token"
      }
    }
  }
}

Development

uv run ruff check .   # lint
uv run ruff format .  # format
uv run ty check       # type check

Available Tools

7 tools
create_collectionB

Create a new collection and return its #id name.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
is_publicNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It only states creation and return value, omitting important details such as whether duplicate names are allowed, access control implications, or response format consistency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very brief (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It achieves conciseness but at the cost of missing information that could fit in the same space.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), the description provides a minimal but acceptable overview. However, it lacks details on error cases or parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might compensate, but the description itself is incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning to the parameters 'name' or 'is_public' beyond their names. For example, it doesn't explain what 'is_public' does, or any constraints on 'name' like uniqueness or length.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create a new collection') and the resource (collection), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with links or listing. The return value hint further clarifies purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for creating a collection but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with siblings like list_collections. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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

list_collectionsA

List all collections as #id name (link count), one per line.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output format, which is helpful, but lacks information about ordering, pagination, performance, or any side effects. The tool appears to be a simple read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and output format. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists), the description provides the essential output format and purpose. It could be improved by mentioning that it lists all collections without filtering, but it is mostly complete for its use case.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the exact output format, which is not captured in the input schema. This is above the baseline of 3 for a no-parameter tool.

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 that the tool lists all collections with a specific format of '#id name (link count)', one per line. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_links' which list links, and 'create_collection' which creates collections.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to use 'list_links' or 'find_link' instead. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this tool is appropriate.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 7 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedadd_link
    • First observedcreate_collection
    • First observeddelete_link
    • First observedfind_link
    • First observedlist_collections
    • First observedlist_links
    • First observedmove_link
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 7 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: add, delete, find, move links; create and list collections; list links. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_link, list_collections), making it easy for an agent to infer functionality.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped. It covers core operations for a link management service without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers primary CRUD operations for links (add, delete, move, find) and collection management (create, list). Missing update operations for links/collections and deletion of collections are minor gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • rainkeeper

    simonives
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Exposes the Raindrop.io API as Claude tools for managing bookmarks, collections, tags, and bulk operations, with proper collection move support.
    19
    1
    MIT

  • raindrop-mcp

    aderaaij
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables management of Raindrop.io bookmarks, collections, tags, and highlights via MCP tools, with support for search, bulk editing, and library auditing.
    17
    MIT

  • linkwarden-mcp

    flumpiey
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    MCP server for Linkwarden bookmarks providing read-first search and preserved content access with opt-in write, delete, and collection-delete tools, plus heuristic triage workflows.
    103 npm
    MIT