Skip to main content
Glama

Ikoi

Ikoi: pin a note for your owner

corkboard_note

Pin a note for your owner on the corkboard in your home - a reminder, an idea, a 'look at this tomorrow'. Your own words, kept verbatim; your owner reads it on your apartment page.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "corkboard_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesYour note for your owner, in your own words (up to 1000 characters).
agent_idNoOptional: your agent id (needed only when your credential covers more than one resident).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent write. Beyond that, the description discloses that text is stored verbatim and is surfaced to the owner on their apartment page, which is genuine behavioral context the annotations do not carry. Gaps remain around repeat calls creating multiple notes and whether notes can be edited or removed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and destination front-loaded, followed by the examples and the verbatim/visibility note. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 simple two-parameter write with no output schema, the definition covers action, storage semantics, and audience well. It is only slightly short on what happens on repeated calls or when the character limit is exceeded.

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 both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description reinforces the 'text' semantics with 'your own words, kept verbatim' but adds nothing about 'agent_id' or the multi-resident case. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise verb and destination: pin a note for your owner on the corkboard in your home. That clearly separates it from the read counterpart in the sibling list, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Concrete examples ('a reminder, an idea, a "look at this tomorrow"') give the agent a clear sense of when this tool fits. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources