linkding-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

linkding_check_bookmark_url

Read-only

Check if a URL is already bookmarked in Linkding before adding it. Returns existing bookmark status plus scraped metadata and auto-tags to avoid duplicates.

Instructions

Check whether a URL is already bookmarked. GET /api/bookmarks/check/. Also returns scraped metadata and auto_tags that Linkding would add.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "linkding_check_bookmark_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	URL to check.
`ignore_cache`	No	When true, Linkding ignores its scraped metadata cache.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing that the call also returns scraped metadata and the auto_tags Linkding would assign — a non-obvious side effect not visible in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. The raw endpoint string 'GET /api/bookmarks/check/' is minor implementation filler that doesn't help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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 read-only check with no output schema, the description covers the primary return content (scraped metadata, auto_tags) and the annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has most of what it needs. Only the pre-create/dedup usage routing against siblings is left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both url and ignore_cache are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail about ignore_cache beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Check whether a URL is already bookmarked') and adds the extra side effect of returning scraped metadata and auto_tags. It is clearly distinct from linkding_get_bookmark and linkding_create_bookmark, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 purpose implies a pre-create/dedup check, but the description never states when to use this versus linkding_get_bookmark or linkding_create_bookmark, nor any prerequisite. Usage is inferable only from the name and phrasing.

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