Retrieve all annotations for a specific wallabag entry by providing its entry ID, so you can review notes and highlights associated with that article.
List annotations for a wallabag entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | wallabag entry/article id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, permissions, pagination, or side-effect behavior.
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?
A single sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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?
For a low-complexity list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema that documents return values, the description is nearly sufficient. The only material gap is the absence of explicit read-only/permission context, which is minor for a simple retrieval operation.
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 the single parameter entry_id is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter detail beyond what is already structured. Per the rubric, this yields the baseline of 3.
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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('annotations') scoped to a wallabag entry, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like wallabag_create_annotation or wallabag_delete_annotation, but the operation type is unambiguous from the verb.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. A reader must infer that it is appropriate whenever annotations for a specific entry are needed, which is the minimum viable context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.