bookmark-mcp

Mark bookmark as read

mark_read

Idempotent

Mark a bookmark as read by supplying its ID. The operation is idempotent and safe to call repeatedly.

Instructions

Mark a bookmark as read. Safe to call repeatedly.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "mark_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Id of the bookmark to mark as read

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bookmark`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds 'safe to call repeatedly', reinforcing the idempotentHint annotation. However, it does not elaborate on what happens if the bookmark doesn't exist or other edge cases. Given annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundancy. The action is front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 simple idempotent mutation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the core behavior and safety, though it could mention return type or error behavior (but output schema likely handles that).

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 schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (mark a bookmark as read) and distinguishes it from sibling tools (add, delete, search) which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly mentions it is safe to call repeatedly, indicating idempotency. Although it doesn't compare to alternatives, the tool's simple nature and distinct siblings make usage clear.

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

Deploy Server