Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
raindrop-mcp

raindrop-mcp

by stevenmichiels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_bookmark

Read-only

Fetch a specific Raindrop.io bookmark using its ID to view its details or verify its existence.

Instructions

Get one bookmark by its positive Raindrop.io ID.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_bookmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookmark_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the 'positive ID' constraint, but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as not-found behavior or response characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the identifying constraint is included efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is complete. No prerequisites, side effects, or return-value explanations are necessary.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that bookmark_id is a Raindrop.io ID and must be positive, which adds meaningful validation context beyond the bare integer type in the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one bookmark' by its 'positive Raindrop.io ID.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_collections or search_bookmarks by specifying a single item lookup by ID.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied: use this when you need a single bookmark and already know its ID. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_bookmarks for finding bookmarks without an ID.

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