linkding-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

linkding_create_tag

Idempotent

Create a Linkding tag by name; omit confirm for a dry-run preview and set confirm true to execute. Existing tag names return the current tag.

Instructions

Create a tag. POST /api/tags/. Linkding returns the existing tag when the name already exists. Omit confirm for a dry-run.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "linkding_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Tag name. Spaces are stored as hyphens.
`confirm`	No	Set to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the non-obvious confirm:true safety gate and default dry-run behavior, which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone. It stops short of describing auth requirements or the exact response body.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, followed by the two facts that change agent behavior (idempotent return, dry-run default). No waste.

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?

No output schema, yet the description covers the important return behavior (existing tag returned on duplicate) and the execute-vs-preview mechanic, which is enough for a 2-parameter create tool. Minor omission of response shape/errors.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only lightly restates the confirm dry-run semantics and implies name is the dedup key; it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a tag') plus the underlying endpoint, which makes it immediately distinguishable from linkding_get_tag, linkding_list_tags, and linkding_delete_tag. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action verb alone separates it from the read/delete tag tools.

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?

Tells the agent that an existing name yields the existing tag (so no pre-flight existence check is needed) and that omitting confirm produces a dry-run. It does not state exclusions or auth prerequisites, but the operating context is clear.

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