Lists assets attached to a specific Linkding bookmark by bookmark ID, with limit and offset pagination, so you can inspect files and metadata linked to that bookmark.
List assets for one bookmark. GET /api/bookmarks/<bookmark_id>/assets/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size. Linkding defaults to 100. | |
| offset | No | Number of results to skip. | |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path — nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what an 'asset' is (file attachment vs. metadata).
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, front-loaded with the operation. The second sentence (REST path) is largely redundant with the first but is compact and harmless.
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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and existing annotations, the essentials are present. However, it omits what assets are and what the response contains, which would help an agent decide whether this tool returns file metadata or download links.
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%, with limit, offset, and bookmark_id all documented in the schema. The description merely echoes bookmark_id via the URL template and adds no semantics beyond the structured fields, 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 with scope: "List assets for one bookmark." An agent can distinguish this from linkding_get_asset by the plural 'List' and the bookmark scoping, though the description never explicitly names that sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus linkding_get_asset, linkding_download_asset, or linkding_list_bookmarks. The only extras are the REST endpoint path, which is not actionable guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.