Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shaarli-mcp

shaarli-mcp

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

shaarli_links

Destructive

Search, retrieve, create, update, and delete Shaarli bookmarks with tag and visibility filters; writes require confirmation and support dry-run previews.

Instructions

Search, get, create, update, and delete Shaarli links. Search uses searchterm, searchtags, visibility, offset, and limit. GET /api/v1/links and GET /api/v1/links/{id}. Writes need confirm true and SHAARLI_ALLOW_WRITES=true. PUT /links/{id} replaces the whole link, so update fetches the existing link and merges the fields you pass. Omit confirm for a dry-run preview. Actions: search, get, create, update, delete.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "shaarli_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoLink id for get, update, and delete.
urlNoBookmark URL. Empty creates a note.
tagsNoTag names.
limitNoPage size, or all. Links default to 20. Tags and history default to all.
titleNo
actionYesShaarli operation to call.
offsetNoNumber of results to skip. Shaarli starts at 0.
confirmNoSet to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.
privateNoStore the link as private.
searchtagsNoTag search, as in the Shaarli UI.
searchtermNoFull-text search.
visibilityNoall, public, or private.
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag destructive/openWorld), it discloses the server-side write gate (SHAARLI_ALLOW_WRITES), the dry-run escape hatch, and the critical PUT whole-resource replacement semantic that makes update a fetch-and-merge. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations, and nothing contradicts destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the action list, then the write-safety rules, then edge semantics — a sensible priority order with no filler prose. Minor redundancy: the trailing 'Actions:' list and the raw 'GET /api/v1/links' endpoint references restate what the first sentence and enum already convey.

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 13-parameter, five-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk unknowns: write gating, dry-run, and update replacement behavior. Gaps remain around delete confirmation requirements and pagination/response shape on search, but the essential call-correctly information is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 85% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by grouping which parameters apply to search and by explaining that update merges passed fields into the fetched link rather than replacing it wholesale. It still leaves the roles of confirm, visibility, and offset largely to the schema.

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?

The opening sentence states a specific multi-action verb set against a specific resource ('Search, get, create, update, and delete Shaarli links') and the trailing action list disambiguates the enum. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like shaarli_tags or shaarli_info, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

It tells the agent which parameters drive search, that writes require both confirm=true and SHAARLI_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and that omitting confirm yields a dry-run preview — actionable invocation guidance. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing against the sibling tools.

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