Downloads a Linkding bookmark asset, returning text for small textual files or content type, length, and filename for larger files.
Download a bookmark asset. Returns the text when the file is small and textual. Otherwise returns content type, length, and filename only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | Asset id. | |
| bookmark_id | Yes | Bookmark id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the conditional return shape (text for small/textual files, metadata-only otherwise). It doesn't state what 'small' means or any size threshold, which limits precision.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional return behavior immediately following. Every sentence 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does, covering both the text and metadata-only cases. The only gap is the undefined threshold for 'small' and no mention of error behavior for missing assets.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both required integer parameters are already documented ('Bookmark id.', 'Asset id.'). The description adds no additional meaning about identifier sourcing or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Download a bookmark asset'), which is clear and actionable. It doesn't differentiate itself from the adjacent linkding_get_asset or linkding_list_assets siblings, so the agent must infer that this one fetches actual content rather than metadata.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'download' — the description never states when to prefer this over linkding_get_asset or linkding_list_assets, nor any prerequisites. An agent can guess from the name, but no explicit routing guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.