dolphin-anty-mcp

Update a bookmark

update_bookmark

Update a bookmark by its ID, changing only the provided fields like URL, name, or team sharing.

Instructions

Change a bookmark. Only the fields you pass are modified.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_bookmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`url`	No
`name`	No
`mainWebsite`	No
`sharedToEntireTeam`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses partial-update semantics beyond what annotations provide: unspecified fields remain unchanged. Since readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, this adds useful behavioral detail. It does not cover error cases or return values, but annotations are present and low-risk.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately adding the critical partial-update behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With 5 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the action and the partial-update behavior. The absence of return-value documentation is a minor gap but does not hinder selection or invocation for a straightforward update tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that only passed fields are modified, which clarifies the role of each optional parameter. However, it does not detail individual parameters like mainWebsite or sharedToEntireTeam, though their names and schema types are self-explanatory.

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 description states the tool's function clearly: 'Change a bookmark.' This identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from create/delete/list bookmark tools. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools, but the resource is clear.

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 description gives a key usage guideline: 'Only the fields you pass are modified,' which tells the agent how to perform a partial update. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context implies this is for modifying an existing bookmark by ID.

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

Deploy Server