Summarize your saved X bookmarks and likes: counts, date range, frequent people, and common topics. Use before broad questions for a quick overview.
A summary of the user's saved X library: how many bookmarks and likes, the date range, the people they save most, and their most common topics. Useful before answering broad questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the payload composition (counts, date range, top people, top topics), which substitutes for the missing output schema; it does not mention cost or whether it scans the entire library.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the content of the summary front-loaded and the usage hint placed last. Every clause earns its place.
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 no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the remaining burden and does so by enumerating the returned fields. Minor gaps remain around how many top people/topics are returned and any latency implications of aggregating a full library.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning needs to be conveyed in prose.
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 names the specific resource (the user's saved X library) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: bookmark/like counts, date range, top saved people, and common topics. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools search_saves, recent_saves and get_post, which return individual posts rather than aggregates.
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?
"Useful before answering broad questions" gives a clear usage context and implicitly routes narrow lookups to the search/get siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. for a single post or a specific saved item).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.