Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
linkding-mcp

linkding-mcp

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

linkding_upload_asset

Upload a local file as an asset for a specified Linkding bookmark; omit confirm to preview the filename and size before writing.

Instructions

Upload a local file as a bookmark asset. POST multipart field file to /api/bookmarks/<bookmark_id>/assets/upload/. Omit confirm for a dry-run that names the file and its size.

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": {
      "bookmark_id": "<bookmark_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "linkding_upload_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoSet to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.
file_pathYesLocal file to upload. The request is multipart with one part named file.
bookmark_idYesBookmark id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real value by explaining the two-phase confirm/dry-run pattern and what the dry-run returns (file name and size), which is not in the annotations. It doesn't note that repeat uploads create additional assets (relevant to idempotentHint=false).

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: purpose first, endpoint second, safety pattern third. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 three-parameter write with no output schema, the purpose, endpoint, wire format, and dry-run behavior are covered. The main missing piece is post-upload result/duplicate behavior, which is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents confirm, file_path and bookmark_id in detail. The description adds only the multipart wire format ('field file'), a minor supplement.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and object ('Upload a local file as a bookmark asset') plus the exact endpoint, so it is clearly distinct from create_bookmark, list_assets and download_asset.

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?

The dry-run rule ('Omit confirm for a dry-run that names the file and its size') gives concrete guidance on the two invocation modes. It doesn't contrast with siblings such as create_bookmark, but the upload action is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools